Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: George A. HOLT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dennis E. WARD and Ralph M. Mohr, as Commissioners of the Erie County Board of Elections, Barbara Miller-Williams, Candidate, and Mark A. Smalls, Objector, Respondents-Respondents.
Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to direct the Erie County Board of Elections (Board of Elections) to place petitioner's name on the ballot for the Democratic primary election to be held on September 18, 2007. Petitioner contends that the court erred in agreeing with the Board of Elections that 41 signatures collected by a certain witness were invalid because he listed an incorrect residence on the sheets of the designating petition containing the signatures that he collected and thus that petitioner's designating petition lacked the requisite number of valid signatures. We reject that contention. The witness listed the address of a residence that previously was owned by his mother but was presently owned by an individual unknown to the witness. According to the testimony of the witness at the hearing on the petition, although his previous neighbors occasionally delivered mail to him that was erroneously delivered to that address, he listed that address because he did not own or rent a residence and was residing in the back of petitioner's campaign headquarters when he collected the signatures at issue. The record thus supports the court's determination that the address listed by the witness on the designating petition was a residence address with which he no longer had “legitimate, significant and continuing attachments” and thus that the signatures collected by that witness were invalid (Matter of Ferguson v. McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 598, 600, 467 N.Y.S.2d 192, 454 N.E.2d 532; see Election Law § 6-132[2]; Matter of Lemishow v. Black, 63 N.Y.2d 684, 479 N.Y.S.2d 972, 468 N.E.2d 1109; Matter of Isabella v. Hotaling, 207 A.D.2d 648, 650, 615 N.Y.S.2d 945, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 801, 617 N.Y.S.2d 135, 641 N.E.2d 156).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 22, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)