Sadofsky v. DiGiacomo

264 A.D.2d 701, 694 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9071
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 10, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 701 (Sadofsky v. DiGiacomo) 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
Sadofsky v. DiGiacomo, 264 A.D.2d 701, 694 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to invalidate a petition designating Charles G. DiGiacomo as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1999, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of member of the Westchester County Legislature, District 1, in a general election to be held on November 2, 1999, the appeal is from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered August 23, 1999, which denied the motion of Charles G. DiGiacomo to dismiss the petition, and (2) a final order of the same court dated September 2, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the petition and, in effect, directed that the name of Charles G. DiGiacomo be removed from the ballot for the November 2, 1999, general election.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered August 23, 1999, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order entered August 23, 1999, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the final order in the proceeding (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the intermediate order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the final order (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the petitioner’s specifications of objections to the designating petition are in substantial compliance with Election Law § 6-154 (cf., Matter of Sullivan v New York City Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d 565; Matter of Gallonty v New York City Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d [702]*702563). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brotherton v. Suffolk County Board of Elections
33 A.D.3d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Edelstein v. Suffolk County Board of Elections
33 A.D.3d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 701, 694 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadofsky-v-digiacomo-nyappdiv-1999.