From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Tuomey v. Cohen

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 17, 1946
69 N.E.2d 15 (N.Y. 1946)

Opinion

Argued August 17, 1946

Decided August 17, 1946

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, STEINBRINK, J.

Samuel M. Ostroff for appellant.

Abraham J. Multer for respondent.

John J. Bennett, Corporation Counsel ( Russell L. Tarbox of counsel), for S. Howard Cohen et al., constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York.


MEMORANDUM: Some of the judges are of opinion that the appellant Ambro validly complied with section 335 of the Election Law but that view does not have the support of a majority of the court. Since the Appellate Division's order of modification was made on the law alone, we lack the power to review the facts (Civ. Prac. Act, § 602). Hence, the order is affirmed, without costs. No opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and FULD, JJ. Taking no part: THACHER and DYE, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Tuomey v. Cohen

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 17, 1946
69 N.E.2d 15 (N.Y. 1946)
Case details for

Matter of Tuomey v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAMES W. TUOMEY, Respondent, against S. HOWARD COHEN et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Aug 17, 1946

Citations

69 N.E.2d 15 (N.Y. 1946)
69 N.E.2d 15

Citing Cases

Matter of Ambro v. Coveney

The last day to institute a proceeding with respect to such nominating petition was September 25, 1967…

Matter of Goodman v. Hayduk

Section 16-116 of the Election Law requires that such a proceeding be "heard upon a verified petition". To…