Legal Opinion

MATTER OF PLUNKETT v. Mahoney

New York Court of Appeals

Decided August 30, 1990PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*850OPINION OF THE COURT

Order modified, without costs, by denying the cross petition for the reasons stated in the dissenting in part memorandum by Justices Boomer and Lowery at the Appellate Division (— AD2d —) and, as so modified, affirmed. We add only that failure to timely file a certificate of authorization, which was required in this instance in order for there to be a valid designating petition (Election Law §6-120 [3]), constituted a "fatal defect” under Election Law § 1-106 (2). Moreover, because the petition is void under the statute, the defect cannot be considered merely "technical”…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harden v. Board of ElectionsNew York Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Stampf v. HillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  2. Maurer v. MonescalchiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Proud v. RelinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  4. Stockum v. CastineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  5. Amo v. Orange County Board of ElectionsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001

12 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