From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mack v. Joyner

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Aug 21, 2014
120 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-08-21

In re Reverend Verdell MACK, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Latoya JOYNER, Respondent–Respondent, The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent.

Law Office of Donald R. Dunn, Jr., Bronx (Donald R. Dunn, Jr. of counsel), for appellants. Stanley K. Schlein, Bronx, for Latoya Joyner, respondent.


Law Office of Donald R. Dunn, Jr., Bronx (Donald R. Dunn, Jr. of counsel), for appellants. Stanley K. Schlein, Bronx, for Latoya Joyner, respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John W. Carter, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2014, denying the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the record, we find that the work product of certain subscribing witnesses was fraudulent. Nonetheless, we do not find, as a matter of law, that the entire designating petition is permeated with fraud ( see Matter of Felder v. Storobin, 100 A.D.3d 11, 15, 953 N.Y.S.2d 604 [2d Dept.2012] ).

We do not reach respondent's request for affirmative relief as she did not file a notice of appeal. MANZANET–DANIELS, J.P., RICHTER, FEINMAN, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mack v. Joyner

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Aug 21, 2014
120 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Mack v. Joyner

Case Details

Full title:In re Reverend Verdell MACK, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. Latoya…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Aug 21, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 5918
991 N.Y.S.2d 312

Citing Cases

Dearmyer v. Stachura

"[O]ne fraudulent signature is not clear and convincing evidence that a designating petition is permeated…