Wolf v. Acito

New York Court of Appeals

Wolf v. Acito

369 N.E.2d 1178, 42 N.Y.2d 1076, 399 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2417

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 369 N.E.2d 1178 (Wolf v. Acito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolf v. Acito, 369 N.E.2d 1178, 42 N.Y.2d 1076, 399 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2417 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We conclude that the State Board of Elections acted erroneously in the manner of conducting the drawing requested by petitioner because, in the nature of the drawing chosen, petitioner bore an unequal risk of obtaining an unfavorable position of the ballot. The board, of course, had to take into account the mechanical limitations of the voting machine, and hence could not place petitioner’s name in column 2. At least Special Term’s method proposed no unfair weighting on any of the candidates. While we agree with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the State board did not follow the directive of section 104 of the Election Law, [1078]*1078we do not regard it as practically desirable that a new lottery should be conducted.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum. We conclude that the State Board of Elections acted erroneously in the manner of conducting the drawing requested by petitioner because, in the nature of the drawing chosen, petitioner bore an unequal risk of obtaining an unfavorable position of the ballot. The board, of course, had to take into account the mechanical limitations of the voting machine, and hence could not place petitioner’s name in column 2. At least Special Term’s method proposed no unfair weighting on any of the candidates. While we agree with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the State board did not follow the directive of section 104 of the Election Law, [1078]*1078we do not regard it as practically desirable that a new lottery should be conducted.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judge Jasen taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.E.2d 1178, 42 N.Y.2d 1076, 399 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-acito-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack