Proskin v. May
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the disposition at Special Term reinstated.
It is true that in the face of the affirmative finding by both lower courts that the remaining 104 signatures were valid, the fraud and irregularities found by Special Term and affirmed at the Appellate Division with respect to the 116 invalid signatures cannot in this instance support an inference that *830similar infirmities existed as to other signatures on the petition. Nonetheless Special Term found that because of its magnitude, fraud and irregularity so "permeated” the petition as a whole…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mercorella v. BenzaNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Aronson v. PowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
3Cited by29 opinions
- Hennessey v. DiCarloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Flower v. D'ApiceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Perez v. GalarzaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- MacDougall v. Board of ElectionsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Lavine v. ImbrotoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.