Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Krueger v. Richards 59 N.Y.2d 680

← Cases

Krueger v. Richards

59 N.Y.2d 680 Court N.Y. Decision date 1983-05-02 English

Contents

Majority

p. 680
In the Matter of Carol A. Krueger, Respondent, v Martin Richards et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Lois M. Hickey, Appellant.
Argued May 2, 1983;
decided May 2, 1983
p. 682
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert S. Sikorski for appellant.
Robert Allan Muir, Jr., for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division granting the petition to invalidate the nominating petition should be affirmed.

Respondent brought no petition to validate, which would have required that she specify the signatures which she claimed the board had erroneously invalidated. Instead, after the statutory time period (Election Law, § 16-102, subd 2), shfe served an answer to the petition to invalidate containing an affirmative defense in which she claimed,

p. 683
without specification, that there were sufficient valid signatures to her petition. To permit her to do so would be manifestly unfair (see Matter of Suarez v Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620 , 621) because her opponents would thereby be deprived of the full opportunity afforded them by the statute to meet her proof.

The Appellate Division did not err, therefore, in precluding her from relying upon the validity of such unspecified signatures. Nor are there present in this case unique circumstances, such as were present in Matter of Halloway ( 77 AD2d 932 , 933; see Matter of Pell v Coveney, 37 NY2d 494 ). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the substantive issues raised.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur; Judge Fuchsberg taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited

Statutes and regulations cited