From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cox v. Wells

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1977
57 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

April 26, 1977


In a proceeding, inter alia, to validate petitions designating petitioner-appellant as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 23, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1977, which, after a hearing, (1) denied the petition and (2) directed the board of elections to remove petitioner's name from the appropriate ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Special Term found that petitioner had only 191 valid signatures, 9 short of the required 200. Petitioner argues that a sheet containing an additional nine signatures should be validated. The subscribing witness on the afore-mentioned sheet had incorrectly listed both her election and assembly districts. Numerous cases have held that this error is fatal, unless it is caused by confusion due to reapportionment. Since petitioner was not able to prove that such confusion was the reason for the error, the signatures cannot be validated and her application was properly denied (see Matter of Sciarra v Donnelly, 34 N.Y.2d 970; Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 N.Y.2d 993). Martuscello, J.P., Latham, Shapiro and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cox v. Wells

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1977
57 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Cox v. Wells

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BERNICE COX, Appellant, v. KATHERINE WELLS et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Matter of Phanelson v. Pabon

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is well settled that an…

Matter of Higby v. Mahoney

the present and the law of the past? So Justice BRANDEIS cautioned that stare decisis does not carry "a…