Smith v. Mahoney
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sealy v. Vann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- Matter of Bragman v. Larsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Williams v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Barrett v. Scaringe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Matter of Furlong v. Haight (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Fochtman v. Coll (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Detres v. Westchester County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Landry v. Mansion (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Packer v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Staber v. Fidler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Cola v. D'Apice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Liepshutz v. Palmateer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Hargett v. Jefferson (N.Y. 1984)
- Brosnan v. Black (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Golata v. Mahoney (N.Y. 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 of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner submitted a designating petition with a cover sheet that omitted the title of the office for which he was running. This information is required by statute (Election Law, § 6-134, subd 2), with which there must be strict compliance (see Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 773-774). Petitioner’s failure to include the necessary information is not excused by the fact that the form he used was supplied by the local board of elections. That body is not empowered to authorize, implicitly or explicitly, noncompliance with the strictures set forth by the Legislature in section 6-134.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.