Smith v. Bodkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Bodkin

21 A.D.3d 572, 799 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 572 (Smith v. Bodkin) 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

Smith v. Bodkin, 21 A.D.3d 572, 799 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter [573]*573alia, to invalidate a petition designating Christopher D. Bodkin and Steven J. Flotteron as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidates for the public office of Councilman of the Town of Islip, Christopher D. Bodkin and Steven J. Flotteron appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 3, 2005, which granted the petitioner’s motion to dismiss their purported cross petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Bodkin v Garfinkle, 21 AD3d 571 [2005] [decided herewith]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Crane and Rivera, 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 [573]*573alia, to invalidate a petition designating Christopher D. Bodkin and Steven J. Flotteron as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidates for the public office of Councilman of the Town of Islip, Christopher D. Bodkin and Steven J. Flotteron appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 3, 2005, which granted the petitioner’s motion to dismiss their purported cross petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Bodkin v Garfinkle, 21 AD3d 571 [2005] [decided herewith]). H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 572, 799 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bodkin-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack