From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

March 24, 1976


In a proceeding to validate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on April 6, 1976 for the party positions of County Committeemen in the 138th Election District of the 8th Assembly District, Suffolk County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 13, 1976, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The subscribing witness to the two sheets which were invalidated by the respondent board of elections incorrectly listed the assembly district for the prior year (see Gordon v Catania, 34 N.Y.2d 964). Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P.J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the petition, with the following memorandum: The subscribing witness resided at the same address in both the present and prior years. The present address, election district and assembly district were correctly set forth. However, after correctly setting down the same address for the prior year, she incorrectly stated the prior assembly district. Under the circumstances, the erroneous statement of the prior assembly district was not fatal (cf. Matter of Duffy v Hayduk, 41 A.D.2d 944; Matter of Gerrish v Lawley, 37 A.D.2d 791; Matter of Weiss v Mahoney, 49 A.D.2d 796).


Summaries of

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 24, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EVELYN RUTTER et al., Appellants, v. FRANK COVENEY et…

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

Date published: Mar 24, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 1049 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Matter of Shaplo v. Kizner

In our opinion, the omission rendered the signatures invalid. The requirements of subdivision 3 of section…

Matter of Nobles v. Grant

We agree with appellants that the petitions cannot stand. The undated and unintialed alterations "were not…