Zicari v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zicari v. Stewart

207 A.D.2d 951, 617 N.Y.S.2d 654

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 951 (Zicari v. Stewart) 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

Zicari v. Stewart, 207 A.D.2d 951, 617 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner’s failure to file the order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 304 renders these proceedings jurisdictionally defective. Although the more specific time limitations for service of process set forth in the Election Law supersede those in the CPLR (see, [952]*952Matter of Barbarite v Hill, 197 AD2d 740; Matter of Ehle v Wallace, 195 AD2d 1086, lv denied 82 NY2d 653), compliance with the filing requirement is necessary for commencement of a special proceeding.

In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions raised by petitioner. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Election Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ. (Filed Aug. 25, 1994.)

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner’s failure to file the order to show cause pursuant to CPLR 304 renders these proceedings jurisdictionally defective. Although the more specific time limitations for service of process set forth in the Election Law supersede those in the CPLR (see, [952]*952Matter of Barbarite v Hill, 197 AD2d 740; Matter of Ehle v Wallace, 195 AD2d 1086, lv denied 82 NY2d 653), compliance with the filing requirement is necessary for commencement of a special proceeding.

In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions raised by petitioner. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Election Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Balio, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ. (Filed Aug. 25, 1994.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 951, 617 N.Y.S.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zicari-v-stewart-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack