Legal Opinion

Morris v. Hayduk

New York Court of Appeals

Decided September 1, 1978PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs. The statutory language which we have previously interpreted as requiring a subscribing witness to a designating petition in all areas of the State to list his current assembly district (Matter of Vari v Hayduk, 42 NY2d 980; see Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993) remains unchanged by the recent recodification of the Election Law (compare Election Law, § 6-132, subd 2, with L 1971, ch 424). Had the Legislature wished to change the law so as to require only those subscribing witnesses who reside in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rutter v. CoveneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. MATTER OF VARI v. HaydukNew York Court of Appeals · 1977

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Higby v. MahoneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Alper v. HaydukNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Brown v. Ulster County Board of ElectionsNew York Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Grabo v. Del VecchioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
  5. Momrow v. ScaringeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API