Rutter v. Coveney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rutter v. Coveney

51 A.D.2d 1049, 381 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11867

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1049 (Rutter v. Coveney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rutter v. Coveney, 51 A.D.2d 1049, 381 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on [1050]*1050April 6, 1976 for the party positions of County Committeemen in the 138th Election District of the 8th Assembly District, Suffolk County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 13, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The subscribing witness to the two sheets which were invalidated by the respondent board of elections incorrectly listed the assembly district for the prior year (see Gordon v Catania, 34 NY2d 964). Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the petition, with the following memorandum: The subscribing witness resided at the same address in both the present and prior years. The present address, election district and assembly district were correctly set forth. However, after correctly setting down the same address for the prior year, she incorrectly stated the prior assembly district. Under the circumstances, the erroneous statement of the prior assembly district was not fatal (cf. Matter of Duffy v Hayduk, 41 AD2d 944; Matter of Gerrish v Lawley, 37 AD2d 791; Matter of Weiss v Mahoney, 49 AD2d 796).

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

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on [1050]*1050April 6, 1976 for the party positions of County Committeemen in the 138th Election District of the 8th Assembly District, Suffolk County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 13, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The subscribing witness to the two sheets which were invalidated by the respondent board of elections incorrectly listed the assembly district for the prior year (see Gordon v Catania, 34 NY2d 964). Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the petition, with the following memorandum: The subscribing witness resided at the same address in both the present and prior years. The present address, election district and assembly district were correctly set forth. However, after correctly setting down the same address for the prior year, she incorrectly stated the prior assembly district. Under the circumstances, the erroneous statement of the prior assembly district was not fatal (cf. Matter of Duffy v Hayduk, 41 AD2d 944; Matter of Gerrish v Lawley, 37 AD2d 791; Matter of Weiss v Mahoney, 49 AD2d 796).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1049, 381 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutter-v-coveney-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack