Morris v. Hayduk
New York Court of Appeals
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
- Rutter v. CoveneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- MATTER OF VARI v. HaydukNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
3Cited by10 opinions
- Higby v. MahoneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Alper v. HaydukNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Brown v. Ulster County Board of ElectionsNew York Supreme Court · 1979
- Grabo v. Del VecchioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- 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.