Wheeler v. Reddy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wheeler v. Reddy

71 A.D.2d 970, 420 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 970 (Wheeler v. Reddy) 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

Wheeler v. Reddy, 71 A.D.2d 970, 420 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 10, 1979 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to section 16-102 of the Election Law, seeking to declare valid the designating petition designating petitioner as a candidate of the Democratic Party for the office of Treasurer of the County of Sullivan in the September 11, 1979 Primary Election. Seeking a place on the primary ballot of the Democratic Party for the office of Treasurer of Sullivan County, petitioner filed a designating petition with the Board of Elections of Sullivan County (board). Objections were filed by respondent Martin S. Miller on August 3, 1979. On August 6, 1979 the board rejected the petition, concluding that since the subscribing witness’ statement on each page of the petition failed to set forth the assembly district of the subscribing witness, the petition was invalid. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to validate the designating petition. Special Term dismissed the proceeding and this appeal ensued. Subdivision 2 of section 6-132 of the Election Law requires a subscribing witness to a designating petition in all areas of the State to list his current assembly district (Matter of Alper v Hayduk, 45 NY2d 809; Matter of Morris v Hayduk, 45 NY2d 793; Matter of Vari v Hayduk, 42 NY2d 980; Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993). The fact that the entire County of Sullivan is wholly within the 98th Assembly District and that all of the subscribing witnesses listed addresses in Sullivan County does not obviate the clear mandate of the statute that each page of the designating petition list the assembly district of the subscribing witness (Matter of Vari v Hayduk, supra; cf. Matter of Rutter v Coveney, supra). Accordingly, there must be an affirmance. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 10, 1979 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to section 16-102 of the Election Law, seeking to declare valid the designating petition designating petitioner as a candidate of the Democratic Party for the office of Treasurer of the County of Sullivan in the September 11, 1979 Primary Election. Seeking a place on the primary ballot of the Democratic Party for the office of Treasurer of Sullivan County, petitioner filed a designating petition with the Board of Elections of Sullivan County (board). Objections were filed by respondent Martin S. Miller on August 3, 1979. On August 6, 1979 the board rejected the petition, concluding that since the subscribing witness’ statement on each page of the petition failed to set forth the assembly district of the subscribing witness, the petition was invalid. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to validate the designating petition. Special Term dismissed the proceeding and this appeal ensued. Subdivision 2 of section 6-132 of the Election Law requires a subscribing witness to a designating petition in all areas of the State to list his current assembly district (Matter of Alper v Hayduk, 45 NY2d 809; Matter of Morris v Hayduk, 45 NY2d 793; Matter of Vari v Hayduk, 42 NY2d 980; Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993). The fact that the entire County of Sullivan is wholly within the 98th Assembly District and that all of the subscribing witnesses listed addresses in Sullivan County does not obviate the clear mandate of the statute that each page of the designating petition list the assembly district of the subscribing witness (Matter of Vari v Hayduk, supra; cf. Matter of Rutter v Coveney, supra). Accordingly, there must be an affirmance. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 970, 420 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheeler-v-reddy-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack