Verity v. Fitzgibbon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Verity v. Fitzgibbon

123 A.D.2d 653, 507 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60803

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 653 (Verity v. Fitzgibbon) 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

Verity v. Fitzgibbon, 123 A.D.2d 653, 507 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Madeleine L. Fitzgibbon as a candidate of the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO Party in the general election to be held on November 4, 1986, for the public office of Member of the Assembly, Eleventh Assembly District, and a cross proceeding to invalidate said petition, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated October 1, 1986, which denied the application to invalidate and granted the application to validate the petition.

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

We agree with Special Term insofar as it found that the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO Party (hereinafter Concerned Citizens), an independent body, did not violate Election [654]*654Law § 6-138 (3) when it selected its name, despite the claim of similarity to Ratepayers Against LILCO, Inc. (hereinafter Ratepayers), which is also an independent body and not an existing party as those terms are defined by Election Law § 1-104 (12) and (3), respectively. On the record before us, it appears that the candidate representing the Concerned Citizens filed her nominating petition one full day before the Ratepayers’ candidate did (cf. Carey v Chiavaroli, 97 AD2d 981). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Madeleine L. Fitzgibbon as a candidate of the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO Party in the general election to be held on November 4, 1986, for the public office of Member of the Assembly, Eleventh Assembly District, and a cross proceeding to invalidate said petition, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated October 1, 1986, which denied the application to invalidate and granted the application to validate the petition.

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

We agree with Special Term insofar as it found that the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO Party (hereinafter Concerned Citizens), an independent body, did not violate Election [654]*654Law § 6-138 (3) when it selected its name, despite the claim of similarity to Ratepayers Against LILCO, Inc. (hereinafter Ratepayers), which is also an independent body and not an existing party as those terms are defined by Election Law § 1-104 (12) and (3), respectively. On the record before us, it appears that the candidate representing the Concerned Citizens filed her nominating petition one full day before the Ratepayers’ candidate did (cf. Carey v Chiavaroli, 97 AD2d 981). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 653, 507 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verity-v-fitzgibbon-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack