Weisberger v. Cohen

260 A.D. 392, 22 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 392 (Weisberger v. Cohen) 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
Weisberger v. Cohen, 260 A.D. 392, 22 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

In this case the board of elections has found that out of the total of 1,413 names appearing upon the petition, 315 were irregular for various reasons. The court below found that there were forgeries appearing upon the sheets authenticated by the witnesses Rofrano and Williams, and by the petitioner Weisberger. Rofrano had authenticated 113 signatures, Williams 20 signatures, and Weisberger, the candidate, 123 signatures. The candidate called no witnesses and submitted no proof.

We thus have a petition in which over twenty per cent of the signatures are concededly irregular and where the sheets authenticated by the candidate himself and two other witnesses contain forgeries and false affidavits by these witnesses. In the absence of some proof that the remaining signatures on the petition were in fact valid, the petition should be rejected. This is not a case where the misguided enthusiasm of a solicitor has resulted in some irregularities. It is shown that the candidate himself actively participated in the fraud and should not be allowed to benefit ■¿hereby, especially in the absence of some explanation.

The order appealed from should be affirmed.

Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Untermyer, J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion.

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

Related

Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett
265 P.3d 356 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2011)
Williams v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics
804 A.2d 316 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2002)
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald
675 P.2d 713 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1984)
Proskin v. May
355 N.E.2d 793 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
In Re Petition of Smith
276 A.2d 868 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
McGovern v. Smith
276 A.2d 868 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
Fazio v. Power
34 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
DeSapio v. Koch
21 A.D.2d 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Hooper v. Power
17 A.D.2d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Schiavetti v. Power
17 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)
Reid v. Trammell
14 A.D.2d 243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
In re Vukelic
23 Misc. 2d 509 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Contessa v. Power
25 Misc. 2d 93 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
O'Connor v. Power
24 Misc. 2d 918 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Bloom v. Power
21 Misc. 2d 885 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
McCaskey v. Kirchoff
152 A.2d 140 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1959)
Johnson v. Westall
208 Misc. 360 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)
Collins v. Heffernan
187 Misc. 165 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)
Lefkowitz v. Cohen
262 A.D. 452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D. 392, 22 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisberger-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1940.