From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ardesia v. Seidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1997
242 A.D.2d 343 (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 appellants to the appropriate ballots.

The Supreme Court erred in invalidating all of the signatures that were witnessed by a certain Commissioner of Deeds. Only three of the signatures were properly invalidated ( see, Matter of O'Dea v. Bell, 242 A.D.2d 349 [decided herewith]).

Additionally, the cover sheets and attached schedules substantially complied with the regulations of the New York State Board of Elections and the New York City Board of Elections ( see, Election Law § 6-134; Matter of Ruiz v. Saez, 68 N.Y.2d 154, 162).

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


Summaries of

Matter of Ardesia v. Seidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 1997
242 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Ardesia v. Seidel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DOMINICK ARDESIA et al., Respondents, v. CONSUELO SEIDEL…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
661 N.Y.S.2d 991

Citing Cases

Paladino v. Kyriakides

"While no particular form is mandated, the data must be set forth in a manner reasonably calculated to give…

In the Matter of Carol Most v. Walker

Substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form in a cover sheet to a designating petition. Here,…