From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Dea v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1997
242 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 20, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of Robert A. Bell to the appropriate ballot.

The Supreme Court erred in invalidating all of the signatures witnessed by a certain Commissioner of Deeds. The testimony adduced at trial supported the finding that the Commissioner failed to take the oath of three of the 146 signatories. These three signatures were properly invalidated ( see, Matter of Boyle v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 185 A.D.2d 953; Matter of Zunno v. Fein, 175 A.D.2d 935, 936). However, no evidence was presented which would rebut the strong presumption of regularity that a public officer has performed the duty imposed upon him by law with respect to the remaining 143 signatures ( see, Matter of Rodriguez v. Harris, 51 N.Y.2d 737, 738; Matter of Caruso v. Casciola, 27 N.Y.2d 657, 658; Matter of Frazier v. Leon, 186 A.D.2d 99, 100).

Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

O'Dea v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1997
242 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

O'Dea v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TIMOTHY P. O'DEA et al., Respondents, v. ROBERT A. BELL…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 265

Citing Cases

Paton v. Tylec

Even if they had alleged such errors, however, that certificate would still be presumptively valid because of…

Lechot v. Mileham

Even if they had alleged such errors, however, that certificate would still be presumptively valid because of…