Sutherland v. Glennon, 224 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Sutherland v. Glennon, 224 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Mannarino v. Goodbee (nyappdiv, 2013-08-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mannarino v. Goodbee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Notwithstanding the Board’s claim to the contrary, petitioner met his burden of demonstrating that his designating petition should be validated under the circumstances presented here (compare Matter of Mielnicki v New York State Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d 819, 820 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; Matter of Goldstein v Carlsen, 59 AD2d 642, 643 [1977], affd 42 NY2d 993 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mannarino v. Goodbee
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Notwithstanding the Board’s claim to the contrary, petitioner met his burden of demonstrating that his designating petition should be validated under the circumstances presented here (compare Matter of Mielnicki v New York State Bd. of Elections, 224 AD2d 819, 820 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]; Matter of Goldstein v Carlsen, 59 AD2d 642, 643 [1977], affd 42 NY2d 993 [1977]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of O'Connor v. Sharpe
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, "[w]here a petition is invalidated by the [B]oard . . . and a proceeding is instituted to reinstate the petition, the burden of proof is on the candidate[s] to establish that the petition is valid" ( Matter of Goldstein v Carlsen , 59 AD2d 642 , 643 [4th Dept 1977], affd 42 NY2d 993 [1977]; see Matter of Mielnicki v New York State Bd. of Elections , 224 AD2d 819, 820 [3d Dept 1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 809 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of David Sutherland
v.
Robert C. Glennon, as Executive Director of the Adirondack Park Agency
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 15, 1996.
224 A.D.2d 819
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—Motion, pursuant to CPLR article 86, for award of attorneys’ fees.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied, without costs, and without prejudice to such application being made to the court of original instance. It is the view of this Court that applications for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CPLR article 86 should be made in the court of original instance.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur.