From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Straus v. Power

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 26, 1968
241 N.E.2d 134 (N.Y. 1968)

Summary

In Matter of Straus v. Power (22 N.Y.2d 886), decided September 26, 1968, the significant circumstance warranting a different result is that the respondent successful candidate in that case submitted proof, explaining discrepancies inter alia through the testimony of registered voters who testified to signing in but not voting in the contested primary.

Summary of this case from Matter of Ippolito v. Power

Opinion

Argued September 25, 1968

Decided September 26, 1968

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, HYMAN KORN, J.

David Levy for appellant.

James J. Leff for respondent.


Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN.


Summaries of

Matter of Straus v. Power

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 26, 1968
241 N.E.2d 134 (N.Y. 1968)

In Matter of Straus v. Power (22 N.Y.2d 886), decided September 26, 1968, the significant circumstance warranting a different result is that the respondent successful candidate in that case submitted proof, explaining discrepancies inter alia through the testimony of registered voters who testified to signing in but not voting in the contested primary.

Summary of this case from Matter of Ippolito v. Power
Case details for

Matter of Straus v. Power

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NATHAN STRAUS, Appellant, v. JAMES M. POWER et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 26, 1968

Citations

241 N.E.2d 134 (N.Y. 1968)
241 N.E.2d 134
294 N.Y.S.2d 98

Citing Cases

Matter of Merola v. Power

d to a winning plurality of 159; that respondent's evidence did tend to support respondent's contention that…

Matter of Ippolito v. Power

And the statute is explicit in directing that irregularities, as well as fraud, may justify the direction of…