Zunno v. Fein

175 A.D.2d 935
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 27, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 935 (Zunno v. Fein) 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
Zunno v. Fein, 175 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Madeline S. Fein as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of that party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council for the 46th Councilmanic District, in which the appellant counterclaimed for validation, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated August 26, 1991, which granted the application to invalidate and dismissed the counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly invalidated those signatures which were witnessed by notaries public who had not taken the oaths of the signators nor obtained any statements from them as to the truth of the statements to which they subscribed their names (see, Matter of Donnelly v Dowd, 12 NY2d 651; Matter of Helfand v Meisser, 30 AD2d 670, affd 22 NY2d 762; cf., Matter of Andolfi v Rohl, 83 AD2d 890). The Supreme Court also properly invalidated the signatures witnessed by a subscribing witness who signed the subscribing witness statement without filling in the number of signatures witnessed (see, Matter of Sheldon v Sperber, 45 NY2d 788). Consequently, the appellant’s designating petition failed to contain a sufficient number of valid signatures. The appellant’s remaining contentions do not warrant a contrary result. Kunzeman, J. P., Fiber, Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Kepert v. Tullo
88 A.D.3d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Harckham v. Burns
33 Misc. 3d 317 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Kutner v. Nassau County Board of Elections
65 A.D.3d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Imre v. Johnson
54 A.D.3d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Leahy v. O'Rourke
307 A.D.2d 1008 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Brown v. Suffolk County Board of Elections
264 A.D.2d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Merrill v. Adler
253 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
O'Dea v. Bell
242 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
McCoy v. Jenkins
242 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Frazier v. Leon
186 A.D.2d 99 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Boyle v. New York City Board of Elections
185 A.D.2d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zunno-v-fein-nyappdiv-1991.