Stalker v. Rand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stalker v. Rand

233 A.D.2d 277, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14647

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 277 (Stalker v. Rand) 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

Stalker v. Rand, 233 A.D.2d 277, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[278]*278In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Nathan Rand as a candidate of the Democratic Party in the general election to be held on November 5, 1996, for the public office of Member of the Council of the Town of Clinton, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bern-hard, J.), entered October 23, 1996, which granted the petition and directed that the name of Nathan Rand be removed from the ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that Nathan Rand was not properly nominated by the members of the County Committee as required by Election Law § 6-116. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed that the appellant’s name be removed from the ballot.

The remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

[278]*278In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Nathan Rand as a candidate of the Democratic Party in the general election to be held on November 5, 1996, for the public office of Member of the Council of the Town of Clinton, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bern-hard, J.), entered October 23, 1996, which granted the petition and directed that the name of Nathan Rand be removed from the ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that Nathan Rand was not properly nominated by the members of the County Committee as required by Election Law § 6-116. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed that the appellant’s name be removed from the ballot.

The remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 277, 649 N.Y.S.2d 796, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stalker-v-rand-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack