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.
“The method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with” (Matter of Hennessey v. DiCarlo, 21 AD3d 505, 505; see Matter of Del Villar v. Vekiarelis, 59 AD3d 642, 643; Matter of Master v. Pohanka, 43 AD3d 478, 480). The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner failed to establish that he timely complied with the service requirements set forth in the order to show cause. On the record before us, it appears that the petitioner failed to timely submit to the Supreme Court an affidavit of service indicating compliance with the service provision of the order to show cause with respect to the objector. Therefore, the petition was properly denied and the proceeding was, in effect, properly dismissed.
Argued-August 17, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Jerwaine I. Gorman as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2010, for the Democratic Party as a candidate for the party position of Male Member of the New York State Democratic Committee from the 29th Assembly District, Jerwaine I. Gorman appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), entered August 9, 2010, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
SKELOS, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2010-07868 (Index No. 19436 /10)
Decided: August 18, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)