Sarich v. Pontieri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarich v. Pontieri

225 A.D.2d 627, 638 N.Y.2d 788, 638 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2227

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 627 (Sarich v. Pontieri) 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

Sarich v. Pontieri, 225 A.D.2d 627, 638 N.Y.2d 788, 638 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[628]*628The petitioner sought a determination, inter alia, that the nomination by the Democratic Party Caucus of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue (hereinafter the Village) of the appellant Cheryl A. Felice as candidate for the public office of Mayor of the Village, and the nomination of Brian T. Weeks, Richard E. Knutson, and Angelo J. Julian as candidates for the public office of Trustee of the Village were improper, void, and contrary to law on the ground that the notice of caucus was, inter alia, inadequate. The Supreme Court properly granted the petition and prohibited the respondent Mary Pontieri, in her capacity as Village Clerk of the Village, from placing any of the appellants on the General Election ballot of the Village for the election to be held on March 19, 1996.

The Democratic Party failed to indicate in its notice of caucus that the caucus was being held to nominate candidates for the offices of Mayor and Trustee of the Village. Election Law § 15-108 (2) (d) requires that the notice specify "the offices for which candidates will be nominated”. The notice of caucus, which stated that a caucus of the enrolled (Democratic) voters of the Village was being held "for the purpose of making party nominations for offices of said Village” was insufficient as a matter of law. Whether the Democratic Party deliberately or inadvertently omitted the offices to be filled is of no moment (see generally, Matter of Pierce v Breen, 86 NY2d 455).

We do not reach any other issue. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

[628]*628The petitioner sought a determination, inter alia, that the nomination by the Democratic Party Caucus of the Incorporated Village of Patchogue (hereinafter the Village) of the appellant Cheryl A. Felice as candidate for the public office of Mayor of the Village, and the nomination of Brian T. Weeks, Richard E. Knutson, and Angelo J. Julian as candidates for the public office of Trustee of the Village were improper, void, and contrary to law on the ground that the notice of caucus was, inter alia, inadequate. The Supreme Court properly granted the petition and prohibited the respondent Mary Pontieri, in her capacity as Village Clerk of the Village, from placing any of the appellants on the General Election ballot of the Village for the election to be held on March 19, 1996.

The Democratic Party failed to indicate in its notice of caucus that the caucus was being held to nominate candidates for the offices of Mayor and Trustee of the Village. Election Law § 15-108 (2) (d) requires that the notice specify "the offices for which candidates will be nominated”. The notice of caucus, which stated that a caucus of the enrolled (Democratic) voters of the Village was being held "for the purpose of making party nominations for offices of said Village” was insufficient as a matter of law. Whether the Democratic Party deliberately or inadvertently omitted the offices to be filled is of no moment (see generally, Matter of Pierce v Breen, 86 NY2d 455).

We do not reach any other issue. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 627, 638 N.Y.2d 788, 638 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarich-v-pontieri-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack