Opinion
Argued March 17, 1975
Decided March 17, 1975
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, JOHN T. CASEY, J.
Joseph Gold for appellant.
Stephen L. Oppenheim for respondents.
Order affirmed, without costs. By virtue of limitations of time on the parties, including the fact that the village election is to be held tomorrow, the record is hardly satisfactory to resolve the issues upon which the proceeding turns. It appears that subdivision 2 of section 204 of the Election Law would still permit the petitioner to challenge the voting of absentee ballots, if not the registration, of the respondent voters. In so holding, we do not imply that a proceeding brought under section 331 of the Election Law does not lie to challenge registrations. As a practical matter, however, the adequacy of notice and opportunity to respond to the overbroad and disjunctive allegations in the petition are absent in this accelerated proceeding.
Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE.