Krueger v. Richards
| Decision Date | 02 May 1983 |
| Citation | 59 N.Y.2d 680,463 N.Y.S.2d 413 |
| Parties | , 450 N.E.2d 219 In the Matter of Carol A. KRUEGER, Respondent, v. Martin RICHARDS et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Lois M. Hickey, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division granting the petition to invalidate the nominating petition should be affirmed.
Respondent brought no petition to validate, which would have required that she specify the signatures which she claimed the board had erroneously invalidated. Instead, after the statutory time period (Election Law, § 16-102, subd. 2), she served an answer to the petition to invalidate containing an affirmative defense in which she claimed, without specification, that there were sufficient valid signatures to her petition. To permit her to do so would be manifestly unfair (see Matter of Suarez v. Sadowski, 48 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 421 N.Y.S.2d 50, 396 N.E.2d 198) because her opponents would thereby be deprived of the full opportunity afforded them by the statute to meet her proof.
The Appellate Division did not err, therefore, in precluding her from relying upon the validity of such unspecified signatures. Nor are there present in this case unique circumstances, such as were present in Matter of Halloway, 77 A.D.2d 932, 933, 431 N.Y.S.2d 119; see Matter of Pell v. Coveney, 37 N.Y.2d 494, 373 N.Y.S.2d 860, 336 N.E.2d 421. In light of this disposition, we do not reach the substantive issues raised.
FUCHSBERG, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Sasson v. Trikas, 2009 NY Slip Op 31926(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/17/2009)
...or an the interposition of an answer asserting an affirmative defense, neither of which was filed in this proceeding. See, Krueger v. Richards, 59 N.Y.2d 680 (1983); Suarez v. Sadowski, 48 N.Y.2d 620 (1979); Ramos v. Lawson, 298 A.D.2d 610 (2nd Dept. 2002). The Matter of Halloway v. Blakely......
-
Smith v. Sullivan
...marking on the ballots”; “extraneous marks on the ballots”; “irregular markings.” Unlike the facts in Matter of Krueger v. Richards, 59 N.Y.2d 680, 463 N.Y.S.2d 413, 450 N.E.2d 219 [1983], Smith has not been surprised by a last minute objection voiced by Sullivan at the hearing and has had ......
- Williams v. Henderson
-
Maio v. McNamara
...( Matter of Jennings v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 32 A.D.3d 486, 486, 819 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; see Matter of Krueger v. Richards, 59 N.Y.2d 680, 682, 463 N.Y.S.2d 413, 450 N.E.2d 219 ; Matter of Fischer v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 55 A.D.3d 759, 866 N.Y.S.2d 264 ; Matter of Gree......