Thompson v. Valentine
| Decision Date | 27 October 1947 |
| Citation | 297 N.Y. 105,75 N.E.2d 262 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. VALENTINE et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of William Thompson against Jack Valentine and others, constituting the Board of Elections of Wayne County, and others for an order (1) declaring invalid a local option petition filed on August 21, 1947, in the office of respondent Town Clerk of Town of Butler, purporting to request submission to the electors at the general election to be held on November 4, 1947, in said Town of Butler of four questions as to whether alcoholic beverages should be sold in such town in accordance with group A of section 141 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, (2) canceling and removing such petition from files of Board of Elections, (3) restraining the town clerk from posting and publishing notices that said local option questions would be voted upon at the general election, and (4) restraining the Board of Elections from printing the local option questions on the official ballots to be used at the election. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court entered October 22, 1947, which unanimously affirmed an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Gilbert J.) dismissing proceeding, petitioner appeals by permission of the Appellate Division.
Order affirmed.
Victor Levine, of Syracuse, for appellant.
John W. Brandt, of Wolcott, for respondent Town Clerk of Town of Butler.
Appellant was, under the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law, Consol.Laws, c. 17, as made applicable to this proceeding by section 144 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, Consol.Laws, c. 3-B, required to bring this proceeding within fourteen days after the last date for filing the local option petition. Since this present proceeding was not begun within that period, it should have been dismissed at Special Term. We pass on no other question.
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
CONWAY, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyte v. Lawley
...1949. The service was effected August 17, 1949. The Court dismissed the proceeding because of late notice. Also, in Thompson v. Valentine, 1947, 297 N.Y. 105, 75 N.E.2d 262, the Court dismissed a similar proceeding because it was not started within the proper It was even held in Hiltsley v.......
-
Sanyshyn, Application of
...This proceeding was not started until October 4, 1962, twenty-two days after the last date for filing. In Matter of Thompson v. Valentine, 297 N.Y. 105, 75 N.E.2d 262 (1947), the Court held in a per curiam opinion, that an action brought pursuant to Section 330(1) of the Election Law had to......
-
DeSantis v. Brown
...objections to the petitions are untimely and, therefore, should be dismissed. (See, Election Law, § 330; Matter of Thompson v. Valentine, 297 N.Y. 105, 75 N.E.2d 262.) Although we express no view on the legal merits as to the invalidity of the proposed amendments, we would note, however, th......