From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lansner v. Board of Elections

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 2, 1988
72 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued August 31, 1988

Decided September 2, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Joseph Slavin, J.

Robert Allan Muir, Jr., for appellants.

Paul H. Asofsky for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondents' contention, the proceeding to validate petitioners' designations as County Committeepersons was not brought by Lansner in a representative capacity. Rather, it was commenced by the candidates in their individual capacities as petitioners. Moreover, the petition was properly verified solely by Lansner since, in this case, the petitioners were "united in interest" (CPLR 3020 [d]; see, Matter of Castillo v Maclara, 63 N.Y.2d 682, 683). Respondents' remaining arguments are unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judge TITONE taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Lansner v. Board of Elections

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 2, 1988
72 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

Matter of Lansner v. Board of Elections

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVID LANSNER et al., Respondents, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 2, 1988

Citations

72 N.Y.2d 929 (N.Y. 1988)
532 N.Y.S.2d 840
529 N.E.2d 170

Citing Cases

Notholt v. Nassau Cnty. Bd. of Elections

Initially, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petition to validate was properly…

Miller v. FJF Electrical Co., Inc.

They are united in interest as that term is used in the verification statute. Lansner v. Board of Elections…