Matter of Lansner v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York, 529 N.E.2d 170 (N.Y. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Lansner v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York, 529 N.E.2d 170 (N.Y. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Notholt v. Nassau County Board of Elections (nyappdiv, 2015-08-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Notholt v. Nassau County Board of Elections
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Initially, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petition to validate was properly verified solely by the petitioner William Notholt, since, in this case, he was “united in interest” with the other petitioners (CPLR 3020 [d]; see Matter of Lansner v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 72 NY2d 929 [1988]).
discussed Cited "see" Notholt v. Nassau County Board of Elections
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Initially, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petition to validate was properly verified solely by the petitioner William Notholt, since, in this case, he was “united in interest” with the other petitioners (CPLR 3020 [d]; see Matter of Lansner v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 72 NY2d 929 [1988]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David Lansner Et Al., Respondents,
v.
Board of Elections of the City of New York Et Al., Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 2, 1988.
529 N.E.2d 170
1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2104
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert Allan Muir, Jr., for appellants., Paul H. Asofsky for respondents.
Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa Concur Judge Titone Taking No Part.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to respondents’ contention, the proceeding to validate petitioners’ designations as County Committeepersons was not brought by Lansner in a representative capacity.[*930] Rather, it was commenced by the candidates in their individual capacities as petitioners. Moreover, the petition was properly verified solely by Lansner since, in this case, the petitioners were "united in interest” (CPLR 3020 [d]; see, Matter of Castillo v Maclara, 63 NY2d 682, 683). Respondents’ remaining arguments are unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.