Sloan v. Knapp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sloan v. Knapp

10 A.D.3d 434, 780 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 19, 2004·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to validate a petition designating Samuel H. Sloan as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2004, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the United States House of Representatives, 10th Congressional District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 10, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Service was improperly made by the petitioner himself upon the respondents (see CPLR 2103 [a]; Matter of Wein v Thomas, 51 NY2d 862, 863 [1980]). “The [435] express provisions of CPLR 2103 (a) may not be ignored or overlooked any more than may the provisions of other statutes defining the methodology of service” (Miller v Bank of N.Y. [Del.], 226 AD2d 507, 508 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, 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 Samuel H. Sloan as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2004, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the United States House of Representatives, 10th Congressional District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 10, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Service was improperly made by the petitioner himself upon the respondents (see CPLR 2103 [a]; Matter of Wein v Thomas, 51 NY2d 862, 863 [1980]). “The [435] express provisions of CPLR 2103 (a) may not be ignored or overlooked any more than may the provisions of other statutes defining the methodology of service” (Miller v Bank of N.Y. [Del.], 226 AD2d 507, 508 [1996]). Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, S. Miller and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Sloan v. Knapp, 10 A.D.3d 434, 780 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

10 A.D.3d 434 (Sloan v. Knapp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related