From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Goldstein v. Meisser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1960
11 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Opinion

June 1, 1960


Appeal by petitioner from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 27, 1960, which denied her application to overrule objections of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau to her petition; and appeal by said board from so much of such order as declares valid and countable the signatures of Joseph Zollman, Thelma Zuroff and Roslyn Leader. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. We are in accord with the determination at Special Term that the petitioner was not authorized to commence this proceeding pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law, as amended by chapter 1001 of the Laws of 1960. We are also of the opinion that the petition filed is invalid because it fails to describe properly the public office for which the candidate was to be nominated and the political unit in which the candidate was to be elected, as required by section 148-a of the Election Law, as amended by chapter 1042 of the Laws of 1960.


While I do not concur with the majority that the petitioner was not authorized to commence this proceeding, I concur for affirmance solely on the second ground above stated.


Summaries of

Matter of Goldstein v. Meisser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1960
11 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)
Case details for

Matter of Goldstein v. Meisser

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HARRIET GOLDSTEIN, Appellant-Respondent, against WILLIAM…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1960

Citations

11 A.D.2d 687 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Matter of Tupper v. McNab

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and judgment directed denying the application and…

Matter of Fleishman v. Board of Elections

Its purpose is merely to receive service of notices. Respondents further argue that petitioner is not a party…