Matter of Hanofee v. Bd. of Elections

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Bessinger v. Mahoney

    153 A.D.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to respondent's cross motion. An objector must comply with the statutory 14-day time limitation regardless of any determination by the Board (see, Matter of Thompson v. Wallace, 45 N.Y.2d 803, 804; Matter of Garrow v. Mitchell, 112 A.D.2d 1104, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 607). This is particularly so where, as here, allegations of fraud have been raised beyond the domain of the Board (see, Matter of Hanofee v. Board of Elections, 47 Misc.2d 787, 789, mod on other grounds 24 A.D.2d 729, affd 16 N.Y.2d 885). Upon reviewing the designating petition, we further agree that the correct primary election date was clearly set forth as required by Election Law ยง 6-132 (1).

  2. Matter of Pataki v. Hayduk

    87 Misc. 2d 1095 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    The court may however review such determination and resolve issues of fact not appearing on the face of the petitions. (Bednarsh v Cohen, 267 App. Div. 133, app den 267 App. Div. 760, mot for lv to app den 292 N.Y. 578; Frankel v Cheshire, 212 App. Div. 664; Matter of Hanofee, 47 Misc.2d 787, affd 24 A.D.2d 729, affd 16 N.Y.2d 885.) Once the board made its determination on July 29, 1976 its function terminated.