Sedita v. Smolinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sedita v. Smolinski

89 A.D.2d 1052, 454 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18332

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

DecidedSeptember 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 1052 (Sedita v. Smolinski) 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

Sedita v. Smolinski, 89 A.D.2d 1052, 454 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from an order of Special Term dismissing the petition to validate the designating petitions of petitioner candidates, on the ground that the petition was improperly verified as required by section 16-116 of the Election Law. The petition was verified by the attorney for the petitioners rather than any of the petitioners. The requirement that a petition be verified is jurisdictional in nature (Matter of Goodman v Hayduk, 64 AD2d 937, affd 45 NY2d 804) and verification by an attorney rather than a party to the proceeding is not permissible in this case [1053]*1053(Matter of Becker v Power, 207 Misc 53; see, also, CPLR 3020; Matter of Giambra v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of State ofN. Y., 46 NY2d 743). Moreover, the petitions were invalid because of the failure to specify the date of the primary election (see Matter of Braxton v Smolinski, 89 AD2d 1053). (Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. — Election Law.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from an order of Special Term dismissing the petition to validate the designating petitions of petitioner candidates, on the ground that the petition was improperly verified as required by section 16-116 of the Election Law. The petition was verified by the attorney for the petitioners rather than any of the petitioners. The requirement that a petition be verified is jurisdictional in nature (Matter of Goodman v Hayduk, 64 AD2d 937, affd 45 NY2d 804) and verification by an attorney rather than a party to the proceeding is not permissible in this case [1053]*1053(Matter of Becker v Power, 207 Misc 53; see, also, CPLR 3020; Matter of Giambra v Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of State ofN. Y., 46 NY2d 743). Moreover, the petitions were invalid because of the failure to specify the date of the primary election (see Matter of Braxton v Smolinski, 89 AD2d 1053). (Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J. — Election Law.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 1052, 454 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sedita-v-smolinski-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack