From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rapp v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 23, 1995
218 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

August 23, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination of the proceeding on the merits.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that the proceeding was timely commenced. The petitioners established that the petitioner Michael R. Rapp, Sr. commenced the proceeding by order to show cause within three business days of the determination of the respondent Westchester County Board of Elections denying his objections (see, Election Law § 16-102). The respondents' bare conclusory assertion that the determination of the Board of Elections was made at some earlier time is unsupported by any proof in the record (cf., Matter of Eckart v. Edelstein, 185 A.D.2d 955; see also, Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 N.Y.2d 494).

Inasmuch as the Supreme Court did not rule on the specific objections to the petition, we remit the matter for further proceedings on the merits (see, Matter of Pericak v. Hooper, 207 A.D.2d 950). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rapp v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 23, 1995
218 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Rapp v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL R. RAPP, SR., et al., Appellants, v. MARY A…

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

Date published: Aug 23, 1995

Citations

218 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
630 N.Y.S.2d 579

Citing Cases

In re Application of Sirignano v. Sunderland

The Paradox Of The Rapp Case The Petitioner relies upon Rapp v. Wright, 218 A.D.2d 776, 777, 630 N.Y.S.2d 579…