Smith v. McNab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. McNab

96 A.D.2d 922, 466 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19557

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 922 (Smith v. McNab) 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. McNab, 96 A.D.2d 922, 466 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19557 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Rosemarie Smith and Eglantine Cavanagh as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 13,1983, for the office of Member of the Suffolk County Republican Committee, 41st Election District, Town of Huntington, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), dated August 18, 1983, which, in effect, granted the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The designating petition was properly validated as the alteration in the subscribing witness’ statement concerning the number of signatures was initialed and explained (see Matter of Roman v Sharpe, 42 NY2d 986). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Rosemarie Smith and Eglantine Cavanagh as candidates in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 13,1983, for the office of Member of the Suffolk County Republican Committee, 41st Election District, Town of Huntington, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), dated August 18, 1983, which, in effect, granted the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The designating petition was properly validated as the alteration in the subscribing witness’ statement concerning the number of signatures was initialed and explained (see Matter of Roman v Sharpe, 42 NY2d 986). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 922, 466 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mcnab-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack