Tischler v. Hikind
| Decision Date | 10 September 2012 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Mitchell TISCHLER, appellant, v. Dov HIKIND, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
98 A.D.3d 926
951 N.Y.S.2d 529
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06106
In the Matter of Mitchell TISCHLER, appellant,
v.
Dov HIKIND, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Sept. 10, 2012.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
[98 A.D.3d 926]In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Dov Hikind as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2012, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 48th Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.), dated August 9, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the subject designating petition.
ORDERED that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Dov Hikind as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2012, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 48th
[951 N.Y.S.2d 530]
Assembly District is granted, and the Board of Elections in the City of New York is directed to remove the name of Dov Hikind from the appropriate ballot.
[98 A.D.3d 927]The petitioner commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Dov Hikind as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2012, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 48th Assembly District. Ten valid signatures were required on the designating petition. It contained 12 signatures, three of which were challenged by the petitioner. The Supreme Court concluded that two of the signatures were invalid, and those signatures are not at issue on this appeal. With respect to the third signature challenged by the petitioner, at the hearing conducted before the Supreme Court, the parties stipulated that the signer signed his name, was enrolled in the relevant political party, and lived in the relevant district, but that the subscribing witness inserted an incorrect residence address for the signer. The Supreme Court concluded that this signature was valid and, therefore, denied the subject branch of the petition upon finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salka v. Magee
...requirements of this statute ‘must be strictly complied with, as it is a matter of prescribed content’ " ( Matter of Tischler v. Hikind, 98 A.D.3d 926, 927, 951 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2012], quoting Matter of DiSanzo v. Addabbo, 76 A.D.3d 655, 656, 906 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 704, 2......
-
Canary v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
...or her town or city on the face of the designating petition, invalidation of the signature will result (see Matter of Tischler v. Hikind, 98 A.D.3d 926, 927, 951 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2012] ; Matter of Stark v. Kelleher, 32 A.D.3d at 664, 820 N.Y.S.2d 193 ; Matter of Bowen v. Ulster County Bd. of E......
-
People v. Gholam
...evidence of defendant's intent at the time of the alleged crime. “Jurors are presumed to follow the legal instructions they are given” [951 N.Y.S.2d 529]( People v. Baker, 14 N.Y.3d 266, 274, 899 N.Y.S.2d 733, 926 N.E.2d 240 [2010] ). Although we affirm, we are left with a nagging sense of ......
-
Canary v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
...her town or city on the face of the designating petition, invalidation of the signature will result ( see Matter of Tischler v. Hikind, 98 A.D.3d 926, 927, 951 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2012]; Matter of Stark v. Kelleher, 32 A.D.3d at 664, 820 N.Y.S.2d 193; Matter of Bowen v. Ulster County Bd. of Elect......