You are here: / / INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING...

INCONSEQUENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inclusion of extraneous district numbers under the names of the candidates did not invalidate the designating petition:

Election Law § 6-134, setting forth rules for designating petitions, states that its provisions “shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” … . Further, an error in the required information for a designating petition is not grounds for invalidation when the designating petition is sufficiently informative to preclude confusion or deception of the signers or the BOE [NYC Board of Elections] … . Thus, when an innocent and inconsequential violation of a technical rule of the Election Law pertaining to designating petitions is involved, by which a candidate has nothing to gain, and the violation creates no difficulty in reviewing the designating petition for its validity and accuracy and presents no potential for fraud or prejudice, said violation must be deemed inconsequential and the designating petition should be said to have complied with the requirements of the Election Law … . Applying this standard to the circumstances presented herein, we find that the extraneous inclusion in the designating petition pages of election district numbers is inconsequential … . Matter of Wagner v Elasser, 2021 NY Slip Op 03135, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ONLY CANCELLATION OF A MORTGAGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED THE NOTE AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).
ACQUITTAL ON THE RAPE AND FORCIBLE TOUCHING CHARGES RENDERED THE “ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD” CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Evidence Relating to Victim’s Recantation at SORA Hearing
DISCLOSURE OF TOWN EMAIL LIST PROPERLY ORDERED.
IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE, TESTIMONY THAT NOTICE OF THE REVOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE WAS MAILED TO HIM VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT BASED UPON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.

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

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE...