From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Shaeffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1932
237 App. Div. 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

November 1, 1932.

Appeal from Supreme Court of Saratoga County.

George E. O'Connor, for the appellant.

John W. Nichols, County Attorney, for the respondents, Board of Elections.

Leary Fullerton, for the Republican County Committee and George Anderson.

William O'Brien, for the Democratic County Committee.


Section 249 of the Election Law, as it now stands (Laws of 1932, chap. 587), contains no provision expressly covering the case here presented. It does require, however, in a case when a candidate is the nominee of more than one party, and also of one or more independent bodies, that his name shall appear in the row of each party, but the emblem of such independent body shall appear in only one of the party rows. The Legislature evidently perceived no resulting confusion and disadvantage from such an arrangement, and hence there seems no reason for apprehending confusion and disadvantage in the case now presented. (See Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis, 246 N.Y. 256.)

We do not now decide that prejudice to a candidate may not result in any case; that must be determined upon the facts in each case.

VAN KIRK, P.J., HINMAN, HILL, RHODES and CRAPSER, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Matter of Shaeffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 1, 1932
237 App. Div. 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Matter of Shaeffer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of HENRY A. SHAEFFER and GEORGE…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1932

Citations

237 App. Div. 278 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
262 N.Y.S. 567

Citing Cases

Matter of Robinson v. Brock

We reach the conclusion, therefore, that a person who is the sole candidate of an independent body is not by…

Matter of Percy v. Cohalan

In its decision the Special Term stated that no facts were presented to it for determination. In view of the…