From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Edward M. Walsh v. Verdi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-1

In the Matter of Edward M. WALSH, Jr., etc., appellant,v.Joseph VERDI, etc., et al., respondents.


Leventhal and Sliney, LLP, Roslyn, N.Y. (Steven G. Leventhal of counsel), for appellant.Martin E. Connor, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Kathy B. Huang of counsel), for respondents Louis A. Civello, Robert G. Murphy, John P. Hnat, Peter Conte, Louis K. Molinari, and Louis Tutone.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–110(2) to cancel the enrollments of certain individuals in the Conservative Party, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Miller, J.), dated September 17, 2010,

which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition and the proceeding.

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, the chairperson of the county committee of a political party, or a subcommittee appointed by the chairperson, conducts hearings, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Election Law § 16–110(2), to determine whether certain members of that party are not in sympathy with that party's principles, those members must receive notice of such hearings, in person or by mail, at least two days before the hearing ( see Election Law § 16–110[2] ).

Here, the petitioner did not offer sufficient proof that the notices were duly addressed and mailed and, therefore, the petitioner failed to show that the members received the required notice ( cf. Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829, 414 N.Y.S.2d 117, 386 N.E.2d 1085; New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 29 A.D.3d 547, 547–548, 814 N.Y.S.2d 687; Residential Holding Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 679, 680, 729 N.Y.S.2d 776; Matter of Rodriguez v. Wing, 251 A.D.2d 335, 336, 673 N.Y.S.2d 734; Clark v. Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 221 A.D.2d 227, 633 N.Y.S.2d 311; City of Yonkers v. Clark & Son, 159 A.D.2d 535, 552 N.Y.S.2d 400). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition and the proceeding.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

FLORIO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Edward M. Walsh v. Verdi

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2011
89 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In the Matter of Edward M. Walsh v. Verdi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Edward M. WALSH, Jr., etc., appellant,v.Joseph VERDI…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
931 N.Y.S.2d 887
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7849

Citing Cases

Mazzullo v. Barnett

We reject that contention. The statute requires only that "[w]here, as here, the chairperson of the county…

Westchester Cnty. Independence Party v. Astorino

The Second Department's decision in the related case said nothing about Rosario, and merely affirmed a…