Sayegh v. Scannapieco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sayegh v. Scannapieco

10 A.D.3d 439, 780 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10358

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 20, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to validate a petition designating William G. Sayegh and Rema M. Sayegh as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2004, for the party positions of Male and Female Member, respectively, of the Independence Party State Committee, 99th Assembly District, Putnam County, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickerson, J.), entered August 13, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as untimely.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for failure to commence the proceeding within the time prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2) (see Matter of Wilson v Garfinkle, 5 AD3d 409 [2004]; Matter of Marino v Orange County Bd. of Elections, 307 AD2d 1011 [2003]; Matter of Krenzer v Town of Caledonia Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 233 AD2d 882 [1996]; see also Krenzer v Town of Caledonia Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 Misc 2d 708 [1995]; Matter of Eckart v Edelstein, 185 AD2d 955 [1992]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to validate a petition designating William G. Sayegh and Rema M. Sayegh as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2004, for the party positions of Male and Female Member, respectively, of the Independence Party State Committee, 99th Assembly District, Putnam County, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickerson, J.), entered August 13, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as untimely.

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

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition for failure to commence the proceeding within the time prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2) (see Matter of Wilson v Garfinkle, 5 AD3d 409 [2004]; Matter of Marino v Orange County Bd. of Elections, 307 AD2d 1011 [2003]; Matter of Krenzer v Town of Caledonia Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 233 AD2d 882 [1996]; see also Krenzer v Town of Caledonia Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 167 Misc 2d 708 [1995]; Matter of Eckart v Edelstein, 185 AD2d 955 [1992]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Sayegh v. Scannapieco, 10 A.D.3d 439, 780 N.Y.S.2d 743, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

10 A.D.3d 439 (Sayegh v. Scannapieco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related