Sgambati v. New York City Board of Elections

224 A.D.2d 564, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1221
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 564 (Sgambati v. New York City Board of Elections) 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
Sgambati v. New York City Board of Elections, 224 A.D.2d 564, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to invalidate petitions designating Janice C. Landis, Gerardo C. Ramirez, and Susan T. Schlotter as candidates in a primary election to be held on March 7, 1996, for the Republican Party party positions of delegates and Eric Hardy, Steven Landis, and Eve Seligson as alternate delegates, respectively, for the 8th Congressional District to the 1996 Republican National Convention, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant claims standing to bring this proceeding on the ground that he is a "person who [has] filed objections” to the petitions pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (1). However, the court properly determined that the specifications of objections to the petitions did not include the addresses of the candidates being"objected to, as required by the rules of the Board of Elections (see, Election Law § 6-154; Matter of Fintz v Poveromo, 197 AD2d 944; Matter of Bennett v Justin, 77 AD2d 960, affd 51 NY2d 722). Accordingly, the appellant lacked standing to bring this proceeding (see, Matter of Bennett v Justin, supra).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ [565]*565remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hayon v. Carrion
41 Misc. 3d 356 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Chiavaro v. New York City Board of Elections
224 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Feliciano v. New York City Board of Elections
224 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Battista v. New York City Board of Elections
224 A.D.2d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Bramwell v. New York City Board of Elections
224 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 A.D.2d 564, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sgambati-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1996.