Faulstitch v. Kasper
| Decision Date | 20 August 1986 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Karl A. FAULSTITCH, etc., Appellant, v. Joseph F. KASPER, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Joseph F. Kasper as a candidate in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on September 9, 1986, for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly from the 31st Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Donoghue, J.), dated August 8, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court erred in refusing to invalidate a total of 12 signatures which appear on pages 53 and 85 of the designating petition since the signers of those pages apparently confused their election and assembly districts and incorrectly set forth the same. The sheets of a designating petition must correctly set forth each signer's election district and ward, if any, and this requirement has been strictly construed (Matter of Liepshutz v. Palmateer, 112 A.D.2d 1101, 493 N.Y.S.2d 234; Matter of Hunter v. Compagni, 74 A.D.2d 1000, 427 N.Y.S.2d 327; Matter of Klemann v. Acito, 64 A.D.2d 952, 408 N.Y.S.2d 563, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 796, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 381 N.E.2d 182; see also, Matter of Higby v. Mahoney, 48 N.Y.2d 15, 421 N.Y.S.2d 35, 396 N.E.2d 183). Nevertheless, a sufficient number of valid signatures remain in the designating petitions to sustain the court's determination.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Yastrzemski v. Loftad, Index No.: 190/16
- Hazell v. Board of Elections of State of N.Y.
-
Andrews v. Board of Elections of County of Albany
...to appeal. A "designating petition must correctly set forth each signer's election district and ward" (Matter of Faulstitch v. Kasper, 122 A.D.2d 903, 506 N.Y.S.2d 5; see, Election Law § 6-130[1]; § 6-132). Transposing these numbers is a fatal defect which invalidates respondents' petition,......
-
O'Dwyer v. Urbanski
...failure to adhere to its mandates is fatal (see, Matter of Harfmann v. Sachs, 138 A.D.2d 551, 526 N.Y.S.2d 42; Matter of Faulstitch v. Kasper, 122 A.D.2d 903, 506 N.Y.S.2d 5). Thus, the consolidated proceedings to validate the petitions were properly ...