New York Court of Appeals, 1980

MATTER OF WEIN v. Molinari

New York Court of Appeals · Decided August 28, 1980 · Cooke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer

51 N.Y.2d 717; 410 N.E.2d 1229; 431 N.Y.S.2d 1003; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2583

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York (N.Y. 1982)
Gadsden v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Matter of Davis v. Czarny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Plochocki v. Onondaga County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Fusco v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Dioguardi v. Donohue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Giorgi v. Monroe County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Hall v. Abu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Marchant v. Echaveste (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Moss v. D'Apice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Philpotts v. Black (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Crafts v. McNab (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Schutrick v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Hanington v. Coveney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Hutson v. Bass (N.Y. 1981)

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.

Messrs. Molinari, Thompson, Hart and Petrides filed objections to appellant’s nominating petition which were upheld by the Board of Elections. In his subsequent special proceeding to validate his petition, appellant named and served only Molinari and Thompson. Accordingly his proceeding was fatally defective for failure to. name and serve Messrs. Hart and Petrides (Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050).

*719 It is irrelevant that Hart had not joined in the counterpart proceeding to invalidate appellant’s nominating petition; the necessity for making him a party to the validation proceeding stemmed from his status as an objector. Nor was the deficiency of parties respondent remedied by the circumstance that the attorney for Molinari and Thompson may also have been attorney for Hart and Petrides. It cannot be successfully contended that Hart and Petrides were brought into the proceeding in consequence of this attorney’s admission of service of the order to show cause instituting the validation proceeding; that admission of service, indorsed on the original order to show cause, is expressly limited to the named respondents, Molinari and Thompson.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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