Neal, Application of
| Decision Date | 01 November 1955 |
| Parties | Application of F. Maxson NEAL and Ruth L. Neal to have their nemes added to the Register of Voters for the First Election District of the Town of Lincklaen, Chenango County, New York. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William J. Gordon, Norwich, for the Neals.
Joe Schapiro, Hamilton, for election district board.
Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and ZELLER, JJ.
Appeals by Inspectors of Election of the First District of the Town of Lincklaen, Chenango County, from three orders of Chenango County Court.
The right of each applicant to registration was challenged upon the ground that neither was a resident of the Town of Lincklaen and each applicant thereupon executed a challenge affidavit. Their answers apparently did not satisfy a majority of the inspectors who refused them registration, Election Law, § 171, subd. 3. Applicants then instituted a proceeding to compel the inspectors to add their names to the register of voters. Upon the return of the show cause order, the inspectors appeared personally before the County Court. Through one of their number, they orally told the Court their reason for refusing registration to applicants, namely, that they believed them not to be residents of the Town of Lincklaen. No witness was sworn nor was any stenographic record made but thereafter an order was signed adjudging applicants to be residents of the Town of Lincklaen and directing their registration.
It seems to us that an issue of fact exists which should be determined only after hearing proof, Election Law, § 335, and hearing proof contemplates the swearing of witnesses and the recording of their testimony. The unsworn and stenographically unrecorded statements by one of the inspectors made upon the return of the show cause order was not proof but only a statement of position taken by the inspectors.
Although we express no opinion on the merits of the controversy, it may be that the established residence of applicants in the Town of Lincklaen at least up to April, 1955; and applicants method of living from then to the date they sought registration may support a finding that they have not changed their residence, but no determination should be reached without a full and adequate hearing.
Order directing registration of applicants reversed, without costs, and matter remitted for a hearing and determination.
Appeals from orders denying reargument or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections
...Law, § 335) which contemplates 'the swearing of witnesses and the recording of their testimony' (Matter of Neal v. Inspectors of Election, 286 App.Div. 1114, 1115, 145 N.Y.S.2d 551). We, therefore, affirm the order appealed from in Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of In Bell and Gorenberg, on th......
-
Palla v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections
...which contemplates the swearing of witnesses and recording of their testimony (Matter of Neal v. Inspectors of Election of First Election Dist. of Town of Lincklaen, 286 App.Div. 1114, 145 N.Y.S.2d 551). The order should be reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs, and t......
-
Hornbeck v. Askin
...145 N.Y.S.2d 628 ... 286 A.D. 1114 ... Application of Burr HORNBECK, Petitioner-Appellant, ... James P. ASKIN and Mildred Milspaugh, as Commissioners of ... Election for the County of Sullivan for an ... ...
-
Neal, Application of
...FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON and ZELLER, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. On remission to the County Court of Chenango County, 286 App.Div. 1114, 145 N.Y.S.2d 551, this proceeding affecting the right of petitioners to register as voters in the Town of Lincklaen has been tried and a record of tes......