Tinari v. Thury

308 A.D.2d 426, 764 N.Y.S.2d 359
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 2, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 426 (Tinari v. Thury) 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
Tinari v. Thury, 308 A.D.2d 426, 764 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate a certificate of substitution designating Thomas G. Teresky as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Town Council of the Town of Huntington, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated August 26, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the certificate of substitution is invalidated, and the Suffolk County Board of Elections is directed to remove the name of Thomas G. Teresky from the appropriate ballot.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The certificate of substitution designating Thomas G. Teresky in place of Brian K. Tuohey, who, on July 11, 2003, duly declined the designation as a candidate in the primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Town Council of the Town of Huntington, was not filed until August 20, 2003. Thus, the certificate of substitution was not filed within the time frame required by the Election Law (see Election Law § 6-158 [l]-[3]). This was a “fatal defect” necessitating the granting of the petition (Election Law § 1-106 [2]), as the Supreme Court was foreclosed from fashioning an exception to this requirement (see Matter of Baker v Monahan, 42 NY2d 1074 [1977]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Breslin v. Conners
10 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 A.D.2d 426, 764 N.Y.S.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinari-v-thury-nyappdiv-2003.