New York Court of Appeals, 2003

Eisenberg v. Strasser

New York Court of Appeals · Decided August 28, 2003

100 N.Y.2d 590; 801 N.E.2d 370

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Cartwright v. Kennedy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matter of Marchionda v. Casella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Fernandez v. Monegro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Matter of Clarke v. Board of Elections in the City of N.Y. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
Matter of Abinanti v. Duffy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Mannarino v. Goodbee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Mannarino v. Goodbee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Pagones v. Irizarry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Stavisky v. Koo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Long (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Maloney v. Ulster County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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.

We agree with the Appellate Division majority and dissent that, under these circumstances, there is no reason to disqualify the candidate for using the name “Tony Eisenberg,” rather than “Anatoly Eyzenberg,” on his designating petition. Nevertheless, the petition was properly invalidated because the candidate did not actually reside at the address he listed as his residence on the designating petition and which he had used for purposes of voter registration. Petitioner’s reliance on Matter of Ferris v Sadowski (45 NY2d 815 [1978]) is misplaced. There, the candidate had recently moved to a new residence. Without his knowledge, a campaign worker who was not aware of the candidate’s change of address listed the former residence address on one of the designating petitions filed with the Board of Elections. In this case, the candidate decided to use an address that was not a true residence.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur; Judge Smith taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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