Matter of Lieblich v. Cohen, 37 N.E.2d 558 (N.Y. 1941). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Lieblich v. Cohen, 37 N.E.2d 558 (N.Y. 1941). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sullivan v. Cohen (nysupct, 1943-10-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sullivan v. Cohen
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Matter of Lieblich v. Cohen, 286 N. Y. 559 .) The 692 signatures were, therefore, properly eliminated.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 30, 1941.
37 N.E.2d 558
Kenneth M. Spence and Charles Pokorny for appellants. Abraham Multer, E. Ivan Rubenstein 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.
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

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 [*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.