You are here: / / FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE GENDER OF THE CANDIDATE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATING...

FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE GENDER OF THE CANDIDATE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a designating petition was properly denied because the gender of the candidate was not specified:

Election Law § 6-132 directs, among other things, that the public office or party position sought be identified on the designating petition. Further, where, as here, a political party provides by rule for equal representation of the sexes on its state committee, “the designating petitions . . . shall list candidates for such party positions separately by sexes” (Election Law § 2-102[4]). Thus, the courts below did not err in denying the petition to validate the designating petition due to the failure to specify whether the office sought was that of male or female member of the state committee … . Matter of Mintz v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 05958, CtApp 8-29-28

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE GENDER OF THE CANDIDATE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (CT APP))

You might also like
any failure by defense counsel to move to suppress identification testimony did not rise to ineffective assistance.
Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure
THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICY; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE PRECLUDED THE ASSIGNEE FROM BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THE POLICY AGAINST THE INSURER (CT APP).
Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court
Starbuck’s Tip-Splitting Policy Analyzed
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
RULE THAT RETIRED JUDGES WHO RETURN TO THE BENCH CANNOT RECEIVE BOTH A SALARY AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS IS NEITHER ILLEGAL NOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LOCATION OF THE DOORWAY AND THE STAIRWAY PILLAR, WHICH...