Simmons v. Wills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simmons v. Wills

54 A.D.3d 431, 863 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.3d 431 (Simmons v. Wills) 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

Simmons v. Wills, 54 A.D.3d 431, 863 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Ruben Wills as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2008, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 6th Congressional District, Ruben Wills appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 14, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the petition to invalidate the designating petition. “Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, the Appellate Division’s ‘authority is as broad as that of the trial court . . . and as to a bench trial it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts’ ” (Matter of Lehrer v Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2007], quoting Northern West[432]*432chester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). We find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the signatures collected by one of the subscribing witnesses were not subscribed in compliance with the Election Law (see Election Law § 6-132 [2]) and that, consequently, the designating petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-136 [2] [g]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Florio, Covello and Balkin, 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, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Ruben Wills as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2008, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 6th Congressional District, Ruben Wills appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 14, 2008, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and invalidated the designating petition.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted the petition to invalidate the designating petition. “Where, as here, a case is tried without a jury, the Appellate Division’s ‘authority is as broad as that of the trial court . . . and as to a bench trial it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts’ ” (Matter of Lehrer v Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2007], quoting Northern West[432]*432chester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). We find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the signatures collected by one of the subscribing witnesses were not subscribed in compliance with the Election Law (see Election Law § 6-132 [2]) and that, consequently, the designating petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-136 [2] [g]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Florio, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 431, 863 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-wills-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack