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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1986·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

123 A.D.2d 653 (Verity v. Fitzgibbon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related