Ferris v. Sadowski
| Decision Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Citation | 409 N.Y.S.2d 133,381 N.E.2d 339,45 N.Y.2d 815 |
| Parties | , 381 N.E.2d 339 In the Matter of Joseph FERRIS, Respondent, v. Anthony SADOWSKI et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and John Jewel et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
We conclude that there is no occasion in this instance to reject the determination of Special Term, affirmed at the Appellate Division, that the petition designating petitioner as a candidate in the Liberal Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1978 for the office of Member of the Assembly from the 51st Assembly District is valid and in substantial compliance with the Election Law notwithstanding an inaccuracy in the statement of his residence address.
Petitioner, Joseph Ferris, is now the Assemblyman from the 51st Assembly District. On July 27, 1978 two petitions were filed with the New York City Board of Elections, each designating Ferris as a candidate for re-election. The Democratic Party petition accurately listed Ferris' address as 292 Windsor Place. The Liberal Party petition was inaccurate; it listed his previous address, 974 47th Street. Each petition concededly contained more than a sufficient number of valid signatures for designation.
On July 31 there were filed with the Board of Elections an authorization by the Liberal Party of the designation of Ferris as its candidate, his acceptance of the Liberal Party designation and two affidavits, one by Ferris setting forth that the address on the petition was incorrect and that the error was without his fault or knowledge, the other by the individual who prepared the designating petition stating that he had been unaware of Ferris' change of address.
Two of the respondents herein filed objections to the Liberal Party petition based on the inaccuracy in the stated address, and the Board of Elections invalidated the petition. The candidate thereupon instituted the present proceeding to validate that petition.
At the hearing in Special Term proof was introduced by the candidate, but none on behalf of the objectants. Ferris testified that he had run for the Assembly from the 51st Assembly District in six previous primary and general elections. He further stated that no other candidate named Joseph Ferris had run for public office in the 51st Assembly District and that he knew of no other person by that name living in the district. When he ran in 1976 his address in both his Democratic and Liberal designating petitions was 974 47th Street, his then residence. On October 1, 1977 he moved to 292 Windsor Place. Special Term declared the petition valid and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. We conclude that there is no reason to disturb the order of the Appellate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mannarino v. Goodbee
...109 A.D.3d 538, ––––, –––N.Y.S.2d ––––, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05625, *1, 2013 WL 4082344 [2013];see generally Matter of Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339 [1978] ). Similarly, although petitioner's last name is spelled on one sheet of the petition as “Mann......
-
Merber v. Bd. of Elections
...with the Election Law and their designating petitions should not be invalidated as defective (see e.g. Matter of Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339 [1978] ; Matter of King v. Sunderland, 175 A.D.2d 896, 896–897, 573 N.Y.S.2d 517 [2d Dept. 1991] ; Matter......
-
Sauberman v. Weinstock
...set forth in Election Law § 6–154(2), have long required strict and literal compliance (see e.g. Matter of Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339 [1978] [ Election Law § 6–154(2) "manifests an intention on the part of the Legislature to mandate a literal or......
-
Abinanti v. Duffy
...to lead to misidentification or confusion on the part of potential signatories as to the candidate's identity ( see Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating peti......