Regan v. Starkweather, 186 A.D.2d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Regan v. Starkweather, 186 A.D.2d 980 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toporek v. Beckwith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
We further conclude that the residence address of Barth on the six signature sheets of the designating petition is adequate and does not warrant invalidation of the designating petition inasmuch as “there has been substantial compliance with the statutorily prescribed format” (Matter of Belak v Rossi, 96 AD2d 1011, 1012 [1983], lv denied 60 NY2d 552 [1983]). “[T]he Election Reform Act of 1992, amending section 6-134 (2) of the Election Law . . . , provides for liberal construction of the residence address requirement” (Matter of Regan v Starkweather, 186 AD2d 980, 981 [1992]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. Tunny
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2003 · confidence medium
By failing to object on that basis with the Board of Elections, petitioner waived review of the claimed objections by this court (Matter of Brosnan v Black, 104 AD2d 469, 471 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 692 [1984]; Matter of Simmons v Jaros, 255 AD2d 939 [1998]; Matter of Regan v Starkweather, 186 AD2d 980, 981 [1992]; Matter of Molloy v Scaringe, 153 AD2d 782, 783 [1989]).
discussed Cited "see" Feldman v. Gold
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the petitioners’ assertions on appeal, the Supreme Court correctly held that the information concerning the subscribing witnesses on the challenged pages of the respondents’ designating petitions substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Law (see, Election Law §§ 6-130, 6-132; see, Matter of Regan v Starkweather, 186 AD2d 980 ; Matter of Wilson v McClean, 175 AD2d 935 , lv denied 78 NY2d 857 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael J. Regan
v.
Ronald J. Starkweather, Constituting the Board of Elections of Monroe County
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 7, 1992.
186 A.D.2d 980
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from the order of Supreme Court denying his motion to invalidate the designating petition of the candidate, Edward I. Zonnevylle, for office of U. S. Congress, 28th Congressional District, on the ground that the correct residence address of the candidate was not on the cover sheet or petition sheets and that the petition failed to set out the Assembly Districts of the witnesses.

The information regarding the candidate’s residence on the cover sheet and petition sheets is adequate. Although the candidate’s actual residence is the Town of Brighton, the candidate’s use of "Rochester” as his residence address is sufficient. Brighton does not have a separate post office, it is[*981] within the Rochester post office region, and no confusion was created thereby (see, Matter of Ferris v Sadowski, 45 NY2d 815, 816-817; see also, Matter of Brewster v Cayuga County Bd. of Elections, 83 AD2d 983). Further, the Election Reform Act of 1992, amending section 6-134 (2) of the Election Law, effective May 8, 1992, provides for liberal construction of the residence address requirement.

Petitioner’s objection to the designating petition based on the alleged failure of the witnesses to set forth their Assembly District was waived by his failure to file this objection with the Board of Elections (see, Matter of Brosnan v Black, 104 AD2d 469, affd 63 NY2d 692). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — Election Law.) Present— Denman, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Boehm and Davis, JJ. (Filed Aug. 25, 1992.)