Russell v. Board of Elections

New York Court of Appeals

Russell v. Board of Elections

381 N.E.2d 162, 45 N.Y.2d 800, 409 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2228

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 381 N.E.2d 162 (Russell v. Board of Elections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Board of Elections, 381 N.E.2d 162, 45 N.Y.2d 800, 409 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2228 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order is affirmed on the memorandum of the Appellate Division. In doing so, we note that the legislative intent to limit the acceptability of authenticating statements made pursuant to section 6-132 of the Election Law to ones signed by notaries public or commissioners of deeds becomes especially plain when the words of that statute are contrasted with the far broader language of the predecessor statute which it replaced. The latter, former section 135 of the Election Law, did not specify notaries, commissioners or others, [802]*802but expressly included any "officer authorized to take affidavits”. We further point out that the power of those authorized to administer oaths or affirmations pursuant to CPLR 2309 is restricted by the prefatory phrase "Unless otherwise provided”. Section 6-132 is such a provision; its unambiguous language is therefore controlling (Matter of Dyte v Lawley, 31 Misc 2d 182, 184, affd 14 AD2d 827).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order is affirmed on the memorandum of the Appellate Division. In doing so, we note that the legislative intent to limit the acceptability of authenticating statements made pursuant to section 6-132 of the Election Law to ones signed by notaries public or commissioners of deeds becomes especially plain when the words of that statute are contrasted with the far broader language of the predecessor statute which it replaced. The latter, former section 135 of the Election Law, did not specify notaries, commissioners or others, [802]*802but expressly included any "officer authorized to take affidavits”. We further point out that the power of those authorized to administer oaths or affirmations pursuant to CPLR 2309 is restricted by the prefatory phrase "Unless otherwise provided”. Section 6-132 is such a provision; its unambiguous language is therefore controlling (Matter of Dyte v Lawley, 31 Misc 2d 182, 184, affd 14 AD2d 827).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 N.E.2d 162, 45 N.Y.2d 800, 409 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-board-of-elections-ny-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack