Thomas v. Blackwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Blackwell

219 A.D.2d 795, 632 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10791

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 795 (Thomas v. Blackwell) 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

Thomas v. Blackwell, 219 A.D.2d 795, 632 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from an order dismissing his petition to declare a designating petition invalid, petitioner argues that Supreme Court erred in precluding him from raising objections to the designating petition for the first time at the hearing on his petition. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, petitioner was properly precluded from attempting to prove defects not listed in the specifications of objections before the Board of Elections or in the order to show cause (see, Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620; Matter of Levitt v Mahoney, 133 AD2d 516; Matter of Belak v Rossi, 96 AD2d 1011, lv denied 60 NY2d 552). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Election Law.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Wesley, JJ. (Filed Aug. 23, 1995.)

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On appeal from an order dismissing his petition to declare a designating petition invalid, petitioner argues that Supreme Court erred in precluding him from raising objections to the designating petition for the first time at the hearing on his petition. We conclude that, under the facts of this case, petitioner was properly precluded from attempting to prove defects not listed in the specifications of objections before the Board of Elections or in the order to show cause (see, Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620; Matter of Levitt v Mahoney, 133 AD2d 516; Matter of Belak v Rossi, 96 AD2d 1011, lv denied 60 NY2d 552). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J. — Election Law.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Wesley, JJ. (Filed Aug. 23, 1995.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 795, 632 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-blackwell-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack