Ambro v. Coveney
Ambro v. Coveney
Opinion of the Court
Order reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein: We treat the appellant’s cross motion in the proceeding, then properly pending in the court, as a substantial compliance with the requirements of section 335 of the Election Law as to form and timeliness of assertion. This assertion was served and filed before the time for the commencement of a proceeding had expired and, indeed, before the Board of Elections acted on the nominating petition. All of the necessary parties to such a proceeding, as determined by the initial order of the court, were already present, and the service of the cross application upon their attorney in the pending proceeding was ■ procedurally sufficient.
Concur: Judges Van Voorhis, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel. Chief Judge Fuld and Judge Burke dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum: The authority for validation or invalidation proceedings under the Election Law is specifically set forth in sections 330 and 335 thereof. Section
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the Matter of Jerome A. Ambro, Jr. v. Frank Coveney, Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, and James Hartnett
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published