St. Lawrence v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Lawrence v. Holland

232 A.D.2d 646, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11382

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 646 (St. Lawrence v. Holland) 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

St. Lawrence v. Holland, 232 A.D.2d 646, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Elections declaring Joseph R. Holland the candidate of the Independence Party for the 38th Senatorial District as a result of the primary election held on September 10, 1996, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 1, 1996, which granted those branches of the motions of Joseph R. Holland and the New York State Board of Elections which were to dismiss the proceeding as premature. Joseph R. Holland cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the proceeding based on objections in point of law.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination in Matter of St. Lawrence v Holland (232 AD2d 645 [decided herewith]); and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as Joseph R. Holland was not aggrieved by the [647]*647order (see, CPLR 5511). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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 article 16, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Elections declaring Joseph R. Holland the candidate of the Independence Party for the 38th Senatorial District as a result of the primary election held on September 10, 1996, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated October 1, 1996, which granted those branches of the motions of Joseph R. Holland and the New York State Board of Elections which were to dismiss the proceeding as premature. Joseph R. Holland cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the proceeding based on objections in point of law.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination in Matter of St. Lawrence v Holland (232 AD2d 645 [decided herewith]); and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as Joseph R. Holland was not aggrieved by the [647]*647order (see, CPLR 5511). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 646, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-lawrence-v-holland-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack