Legal Opinion · Dissent

MATTER OF PLUNKETT v. Mahoney

New York Court of Appeals

Decided August 30, 1990Published

1Dissent

Hancock, Jr., J.

(dissenting in part). I would affirm essentially for the reasons stated by the majority at the Appellate Division.

In my view, the three-day delay in filing the certification of authorization (Election Law § 6-120 [3]) is clearly a "technical defect” of the type which falls within the exception established in Matter of Harden v Board of Elections (74 NY2d 796). The result reached by the majority effectively abolishes the equitable remedy fashioned in Matter of Hunting v Power (20 NY2d 680) which the court recently acknowledged was "designed to give effect to the intention…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hunting v. PowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
  2. Harden v. Board of ElectionsNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Walker v. SalernoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  4. MATTER OF WALKER v. SalernoNew York Court of Appeals · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API