From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Brown v. Starkweather

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1993
197 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

October 1, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Boomer and Boehm, JJ. (Filed Aug. 20, 1993.)


Cross appeal unanimously dismissed and order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly held that petitioner Brown's proceeding was not timely commenced. Election Law § 16-116 requires delivery of the instrument of notice of the proceeding "not later than on the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced" (Matter of Ehle v. Wallace, 195 A.D.2d 1086). Because the order to show cause and petition were delivered to respondent on the day following the last day on which the proceeding could be commenced, the proceeding was untimely and the petition was properly dismissed.

Upon dismissal of Brown's petition, Supreme Court noted that the issues raised in Hellman's petition were moot. It therefore properly declined to rule on the substantive issues raised in the Hellman petition.

Finally, we dismiss the cross appeal. Respondents Starkweather and Relin were not aggrieved by the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511; Town of Massena v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 45 N.Y.2d 482, 488).


Summaries of

Matter of Brown v. Starkweather

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1993
197 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Brown v. Starkweather

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MAXINE C. BROWN, Appellant-Respondent, v. RONALD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1993

Citations

197 A.D.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 449

Citing Cases

T L Associates, Inc. v. Carrier Corp.

Appeal from order by Gold Coast Chemical Corporation and Eli Finkelberg unanimously dismissed without costs…

Swimm v. Bratt

Plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order and thus their cross appeal must be dismissed ( see CPLR 5511;…