New York Court of Appeals, 1978

MATTER OF THOMPSON v. Wallace

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 1, 1978 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur in Memorandum

45 N.Y.2d 803; 381 N.E.2d 164; 409 N.Y.S.2d 6; 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2229

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Sirignano v. Sunderland (New York Supreme Court 2003)
Zaretski v. Tutunjian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Matter of Nowinski v. New York City Bd. of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Stoppenbach v. Goldstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Levy v. Nassau County Board of Elections (New York Supreme Court 1994)
Dwyer v. Barasch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Augustine v. D'Apice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Bessinger v. Mahoney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Visconti v. Paino (New York Supreme Court 1987)
In re the Village of Herkimer Republican Party (New York Supreme Court 1983)
Crable v. Le Fever (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Blenman v. Herron (N.Y. 1980)
Schneeberg v. New York State Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as petitioner is an objector to respondent’s designating petition, rather than the candidate against whose petition the objections were filed, petitioner’s failure to commence this proceeding to invalidate the designating petitions within the 14-day period (Election Law, § 16-102, subd 2) is fatal (compare Matter of Bruno v Peyser, 40 NY2d 827, 828, with Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494). Petitioner’s assertion that he may avoid the 14-day statutory limitation because he is a candidate for the same office as respondent is untenable (see Matter of Pell v Coveney, supra). Since it was petitioner who objected to the designating petition, he was obligated to commence this proceeding within the statutory time period, irrespective of any determination by the Board of Elections.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.