You are here: / / FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION...

FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined strict compliance with the Election Law required that 29 signatures on a designating petition be invalidated. The dates opposite the signatures included the day and month but not the year:

Two statutory provisions are directly relevant to the disposition of this appeal. First, Election Law § 6-130 provides that “[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Second, Election Law § 6-132(1) requires that the “day and year” be “placed opposite” the signature of each signer on a designating petition (Election Law § 6-132[1]). * * *

The requirement that the date—the “day and year”—accompany those signatures is a matter of prescribed content, not form … . “While substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” … . Matter of Avella v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06141, 2nd Dept 9-26-16

 

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION)/DESIGNATING PETITIONS (ELECTION LAW, FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION)

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN WHEN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TOO CLOSE IN THE ON-COMING LANE (SECOND DEPT).
Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book
A “HIGH COST LOAN” AS DEFINED BY THE BANKING LAW IS A DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PROCEEDING TO VALIDATE A DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHO HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.
THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS GIVEN TOO MUCH MORPHINE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Exceptions to “No-Damage-for-Delay” Clause in Construction Contract Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SCRAP METAL SALES OPERATION WAS NOT A TRANSFER STATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF... FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED...