Suthergreen v. Westall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suthergreen v. Westall

6 A.D.2d 1014, 178 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1014 (Suthergreen v. Westall) 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

Suthergreen v. Westall, 6 A.D.2d 1014, 178 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting motion to dismiss proceeding unanimously affirmed, without costs. Assuming, arguendo, that the failure to join respondent Esser, the successful candidate, as a party was not fatal to the proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 192, 193), the defect could not be cured after the time limited for the institution of the proceeding, namely, 10 days after the primary election in question (Election Law, § 330, subd. 2; cf. Matter of Kram v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 746; Matter of Swan v. Cohen, 179 Misc. 69, affd. 262 App. Div. 956, affd. 286 N. Y. 678; Matter of Gallagher v. Cohen, 180 Misc. 1030; Devine v. Cohen, 73 N. Y. S. 2d 317; Matter of Brennan, 73 N. Y. S. 2d 317; Matter of Kaplan, v. Meisser, 196 Misc. 6; Yearwood v. Cohen, 37 N. Y. S. 2d 577). Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Order granting motion to dismiss proceeding unanimously affirmed, without costs. Assuming, arguendo, that the failure to join respondent Esser, the successful candidate, as a party was not fatal to the proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 192, 193), the defect could not be cured after the time limited for the institution of the proceeding, namely, 10 days after the primary election in question (Election Law, § 330, subd. 2; cf. Matter of Kram v. Cohen, 293 N. Y. 746; Matter of Swan v. Cohen, 179 Misc. 69, affd. 262 App. Div. 956, affd. 286 N. Y. 678; Matter of Gallagher v. Cohen, 180 Misc. 1030; Devine v. Cohen, 73 N. Y. S. 2d 317; Matter of Brennan, 73 N. Y. S. 2d 317; Matter of Kaplan, v. Meisser, 196 Misc. 6; Yearwood v. Cohen, 37 N. Y. S. 2d 577). Present — Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1014, 178 N.Y.S.2d 546, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suthergreen-v-westall-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack