From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jones v. New York State Board of Elections

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 1, 1978
381 N.E.2d 182 (N.Y. 1978)

Opinion

Argued August 30, 1978

Decided September 1, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, CON. G. CHOLAKIS, J.

James D. Brewster, appellant pro se. David P. Elkovitch for Kenneth C. Jones, respondent.

Thomas P. Zolezzi and James B. Cantwell for New York State Board of Elections, respondent.


In each case: Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Albany County, reinstated in the following memorandum: Considering the fact that the applicable statute (Election Law, § 6-132) gives no notice as to the requirements for inclusion in designating petitions where the nomenclature of the local electoral subdivisions is materially different from that employed in the statute, there can be no insistence on literal compliance with the statutory prescriptions. That being so, we conclude that the designating petitions in this instance were in sufficient conformity with the requirements of section 6-132. Obviously, there should be prompt legislative correction of this anomaly, peculiar to one county, by addition of appropriate nomenclature or by exception to the State statute (Election Law, § 4-100).

In Matter of Spaulding v New York State Bd. of Elections: We agree with the Appellate Division that the petition to validate was timely.

Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE.


Summaries of

Matter of Jones v. New York State Board of Elections

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 1, 1978
381 N.E.2d 182 (N.Y. 1978)
Case details for

Matter of Jones v. New York State Board of Elections

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KENNETH C. JONES, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 1, 1978

Citations

381 N.E.2d 182 (N.Y. 1978)
381 N.E.2d 182
409 N.Y.S.2d 9

Citing Cases

Matter of Higby v. Mahoney

philosophy of the present and the law of the past? So Justice BRANDEIS cautioned that stare decisis does not…