From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of O'Toole v. D'Apice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1985
112 A.D.2d 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

August 22, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.).


Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly granted a motion by the respondent candidate to dismiss the proceeding. As noted by Special Term, petitioner's application contained a "blunderbuss charge" which failed to set forth any facts which would place respondent candidate on notice of irregularities or errors in the designating petition ( see, Matter of Cohen v. Moss, 97 A.D.2d 644; Matter of Reich v. Power, 30 A.D.2d 925, affd 22 N.Y.2d 887).

In any event, even if we were disposed to examine the merits of petitioner's objections to the designating petition, we would be unable to do so since petitioner has failed to provide the court with the designating petition. Brown, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of O'Toole v. D'Apice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1985
112 A.D.2d 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of O'Toole v. D'Apice

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN P. O'TOOLE, Appellant, v. ANTONIA R. D'APICE et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 22, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

In re Santiago v. Westchester Cty. Bd. of Elect.

The third proceeding was brought by petitioners Nazzal and Annabi pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 and seeks…

Thomas-Barcliff v. McDuffie

respondent-objector movants are entitled to dismissal of the petition's fraud allegations as against them.…