Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Lieblich v. Cohen 286 N.Y. 559

← Cases

Lieblich v. Cohen

286 N.Y. 559 Court N.Y. Decision date 1941-10-30 English

Contents

Majority

p. 559
In the Matter of Neil M. Lieblich, Respondent, against S. Howard Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents. Matthew J. Troy et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Robert J. Crews, Appellant, against S. Howard Cohen et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
Argued October 30, 1941;
decided October 30, 1941.
p. 561
Kenneth M. Spence and Charles Pokorny for appellants.
Where the residence of a subscribing witness to a nominating petition is correctly stated, an error in the numbering of the election district does not invalidate the petition. (Matter of Stapleton, 257 App. Div. 1072 ; Matter of Baum, 268 N. Y. 614 ; Matter of Marion, 174 Misc. Rep. 897 .) The trial court properly allowed 487 signatures where the signers correctly stated their addresses and their 1940 election districts instead of the 1941 election districts, the numbers of their election districts having been changed by the board of elections in 1941. (Matter of Hagler v. Cohen, 252 App. Div. 741 .)
Abraham Multer, E. Ivan Bubenstein and Neil M. Lieblich, in person, for Neil M. Lieblich, respondent.
William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel (Seymour B. Quel of counsel), for Board of Elections, respondent.

Finding No. 6 states: “ I further find that regardless of the date of the signature, 487 such signers were duly registered from the addresses stated but that 1940 election districts instead of the 1941 election districts appeared opposite their addresses, the numbers of their said election districts having been changed by the Board of Elections in 1941.” The provisions of section 137 of the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17) must be complied with. Finding No. 6 does not show compliance here. (Matter

p. 562
of McElroy v. Cohen, 286 N. Y. 686 .) Change of election districts by maps filed in 1941 does not excuse the Signers from compliance with the provisions of the statute. The petition, therefore, does not contain sufficient signatures even if we were to hold that the signatures of the two sets of petitions might be counted together.

The orders should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Orders affirmed.

Cases cited