Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Lefkowtiz v. Cohen 286 N.Y. 499

← Cases

Lefkowtiz v. Cohen

286 N.Y. 499 Court N.Y. Decision date 1941-09-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 499
In the Matter of Louis J. Lefkowitz et al., Appellants, against S. Howard Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York. John R. Davies, Respondent. In the Matter of John R. Davies, Respondent, against S. Howard Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York. Louis J. Lefkowitz et al., Appellants.
p. 500
Argued September 11, 1941;
decided September 11, 1941.
p. 501
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Thomas S. Thacher, Daniel J. Riesner and Alfred Bohlinger for appellants.
Special Term properly refused to validate the remaining 1,481 signatures on the 900 fraud saturated sheets containing 3,932 forged signatures and bearing 900 false authenticating affidavits. (Matter of Weisberger v. Cohen, 22 N. Y. Supp. [2d] 1011; 260 App. Div. 392 ; Matter of Crosbie v. Cohen, 281 N. Y. 329 ; Matter of Phillips [Hubbard], 284 N. Y. 152 ; Matter of Flam, 268 N. Y. 619 .)
John F. X. Finn and Ira N. Hurwitz for John R. Davies, respondent.
The Appellate Division’s decision that the trial court erred in holding that if there is any forgery on a sheet of a designating petition, said entire sheet must be disregarded, is correct. (Matter of Burke v. Terry, 146 App. Div. 520 ; 203 N. Y. 293 .)
p. 502
William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Robert H. Schaffer of counsel), for Board of Elections of the City of New York.

The court agrees unanimously with the conclusions of the Appellate Division in regard to the first two “ specific grounds ” stated by it in the opinion. Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J., vote to reverse on the ground that it is undisputed that some of the canvassers swore falsely to the signatures of a large proportion of those named upon the sheets witnessed by them and that, therefore, in the absence of some explanation by such canvassers there is no basis for any finding that the other signatures upon the sheets are genuine.

A majority of the court are of opinion that this ground is not open to the appellants upon this record, because it is inconsistent with the theory of the trial and with the corresponding disposition made of the issues both by the Special Term and by the Appellate Division, which was that 6,182 signatures were genuine.

The orders should be affirmed, without costs.

Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur; Lehman, Ch. J., and Finch, J., dissent.

Orders affirmed, etc.

Cases cited