From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rittersporn v. Sadowski, Venturini

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 30, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 618 (N.Y. 1979)

Opinion

Argued August 29, 1979

Decided August 30, 1979

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, EDWARD J. GREENFIELD, J.

William F. Larkin and Alvin E. Heutchy for appellant.

Lloyd R. Targer for petitioners-respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

We have examined appellant's challenges to the designating petition based on several specified grounds and find them to be without merit. In particular we reject his contention that the presumption of regularity which attaches to the acts of a commissioner of deeds as a public officer should be inapplicable as a matter of law to statements of a commissioner of deeds who is the candidate named in the designating petition on which his statements appear (see Election Law, § 6-132, subd 3).

Appellant's general challenge to the petition grounded in principles of permeation in consequence of claimed irregularities or fraud or both presented questions of fact which, having been determined against appellant at Special Term and affirmed in the Appellate Division, are now beyond the scope of our review.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of Rittersporn v. Sadowski, Venturini

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 30, 1979
48 N.Y.2d 618 (N.Y. 1979)
Case details for

Matter of Rittersporn v. Sadowski, Venturini

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of B.A. RITTERSPORN, JR., et al., Respondents, v. ANTHONY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Aug 30, 1979

Citations

48 N.Y.2d 618 (N.Y. 1979)
421 N.Y.S.2d 49
396 N.E.2d 197

Citing Cases

Harkenrider v. Hochul

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioners and drawing every inference in their favor,…

Ferreyra v. Arroyo

In so holding, the majority disregards our long-settled standard of review and erroneously interjects itself…