From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berry v. Dodd

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1976
348 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1976)

Opinion

Argued March 29, 1976

Decided March 30, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ANDREW J. DI PAOLA, J.

Bernard S. Meyer, Robert M. Calica and M. Kathryn Meng for appellants in both proceedings.

Robert Markewich and Milton Friedman for Raymond Simon, respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding, and Barbara Honig, petitioner-respondent in the second above-entitled proceeding.


In each case: Order affirmed, without costs (Matter of Sciarra v Donnelly, 34 N.Y.2d 970; Matter of Clune v Hayduk, 34 N.Y.2d 965).

Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges GABRIELLI, JONES and WACHTLER. Judges JASEN, FUCHSBERG and COOKE dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum.


We believe that in each of these cases there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of the Election Law and, accordingly, the judgment should be reversed and the petitions validated. (Cf. Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 N.Y.2d 993, dissenting memorandum.)

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Berry v. Dodd

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1976
348 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1976)
Case details for

Berry v. Dodd

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOHN A. BERRY et al., Appellants, v. ISABEL R. DODD et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 30, 1976

Citations

348 N.E.2d 914 (N.Y. 1976)
348 N.E.2d 914
384 N.Y.S.2d 438

Citing Cases

Matter of Higby v. Mahoney

stice BRANDEIS cautioned that stare decisis does not carry "a universal, inexorable command" (Washington v…

Matter of Bernstein v. Nelson

These insertions are clearly not an erasure (see Matter of Warsoff v Cohen, 289 N.Y. 108). Nor can they be…