From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Finneran v. Hayduk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 1, 1978
381 N.E.2d 161 (N.Y. 1978)

Opinion

Argued August 30, 1978

Decided September 1, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, GEORGE D. BURCHELL, J.

August C. Nimphius, Jr., for appellant.

Thomas J. Abinanti for petitioner-respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Subdivision 1 of section 6-132 of the Election Law provides that a candidate must state his place of residence on the designating petition. Here, with respect to his place of residence, the appellant listed Scarsdale on sheets 1 through 11 and Greenburgh on sheets 12 through 15. In fact as the trial court found, the appellant resides within the Town of Greenburgh and not within the Town of Scarsdale, two separate nonoverlapping municipalities. There is no indication on the record before us that appellant ever resided in the Town of Scarsdale (cf. Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 707. Thus the Appellate Division was correct in holding that sheets 1 through 11 were invalid.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Finneran v. Hayduk

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Sep 1, 1978
381 N.E.2d 161 (N.Y. 1978)
Case details for

Matter of Finneran v. Hayduk

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIAM B. FINNERAN, Respondent, v. ALBERT T. HAYDUK et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Sep 1, 1978

Citations

381 N.E.2d 161 (N.Y. 1978)
381 N.E.2d 161
409 N.Y.S.2d 4

Citing Cases

Matter of Coster v. Lewins

The motion was not made until after two hearings had been concluded. We are in accord with Special Term's…

Matter of Brigandi v. Barasch

Here, respondent listed "91 Skyline Drive, Akron, New York" as his place of residence. However, the record…