Del Villar v. Vekiarelis
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Streng v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Streng v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Rotanelli v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Rotanelli v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Dekom v. Moroney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Dekom v. Moroney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Littlewort v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Nunziato v. Messano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- City of New York v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Lobo v. Soto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Best Batchateu v. Peters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Gorman v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate an independent nominating petition nominating Angel L. Del Villar as the candidate of the Community First Party in a special election to be held on February 24, 2009 for the public office of Member of the New York City Council, 21st Council District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered February 9, 2009, which granted the application of Digna Vekiarelis to
Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
“ ‘The method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with’ ” (Matter of Master v Pohanka, 43 AD3d 478, 480 [2007], quoting Matter of Hennessey v DiCarlo, 21 AD3d 505, 505 [2005]). Even if we accept the petitioner’s interpretation of the service provisions of the subject order to show cause, he nevertheless did not timely effect service of the order to show cause, initial verified petition, and supporting papers upon the objector by any of the methods of service which he claims were permitted. Accordingly, the application to dismiss the amended petition was properly granted and the proceeding was properly dismissed. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.