Zenosky v. Graziani

288 A.D.2d 843, 735 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 843 (Zenosky v. Graziani) 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
Zenosky v. Graziani, 288 A.D.2d 843, 735 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this special proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (1) (see, Election Law § 16-116), seeking to invalidate the nominating petition filed on behalf of Thomas N. Graziani (respondent) for the Law and Order Party, an independent party, for the general election to be held on November 6, 2001. Prior to the return date of the order to show cause commencing this special proceeding, respondent Commissioners of Elections declared the nominating petition invalid. Respondent served a “cross petition” seeking an order directing respondent Commissioners of Elections to validate his nominating petition and to place him on the ballot for the general election. Respondent appeals [844]*844from an order granting petitioner’s request to discontinue this proceeding, contending that Supreme Court should have granted his cross petition. We affirm.

Pursuant to CPLR 402, the pleadings in a special proceeding are limited to a petition, an answer, and a reply to any counterclaim asserted. “The court may permit such other pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may specify” (CPLR 402). “[A] cross claim is not permitted in a special proceeding without leave of court” (Matter of O’Connor v D’Apice, 156 AD2d 610, 612, appeal dismissed and lv denied 75 NY2d 798). Respondent did not seek leave to serve a cross petition, and thus the cross petition was not properly before the court. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, O’Donnell, J. — Election Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ. (Filed Oct. 15, 2001.)

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

Related

Lorigo v. Masullo
2024 NY Slip Op 24060 (New York Supreme Court, Erie County, 2024)
Aguirre v. Hernandez
131 A.D.3d 716 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
White v. Bilal
21 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Ryan Homes, Inc. v. Town Board of Mendon
7 Misc. 3d 709 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
Koplen v. Austin
5 A.D.3d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 843, 735 N.Y.S.2d 436, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zenosky-v-graziani-nyappdiv-2001.