Matter of Gadsen v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Alayeto v. Commissioners of Elections of the City of N.Y. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Matter of Davis v. Czarny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- MatterofSloanvKellner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Sloan v. Kellner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Sloan v. Kellner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Antoine v. Boyland (New York Supreme Court 2008)
- 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)
- Straniere v. Molinaro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Giorgi v. Monroe County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- 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)
- Sitarek v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Macri v. D'Apice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Philpotts v. Black (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Brosnan v. Black (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- 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)
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.
We agree with Special Term and the Appellate Division that the validation proceeding was jurisdictionally defective because of the candidate’s failure to name and serve all those who filed objections to the designating petition (Matter of Wein v Molinari, 51 NY2d 717; Matter of Cappellazzi v Toto, 41 NY2d 1050). This is not altered by the fact that the attorneys who represented unnamed and unserved parties did appear for them in the invalidation proceeding with which the one to validate was consolidated (Matter of Wein v Molinari, supra). Nor does the stipulation as to the validity and number of signatures constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional point since the stipulation expressly provided that it remained subject to the “claim that there is no jurisdiction over two of the objectors in the validation proceeding”. Accordingly, appellant was left with no procedural vehicle by which to reinstate the signatures held invalid by the board of elections (Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.