MacKay v. Cochran, 264 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
MacKay v. Cochran, 264 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Bayly v. Marshall (nysupctmonroe, 2024-04-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bayly v. Marshall
N.Y. Sup. Monroe · 2024 · confidence medium
Bd. of Elections , 49 Misc 3d 811, 814 [NY Sup. Ct. 2015] a ff'd , 131 AD3d 652 [2nd Dept. 2015], See also MacKay v. Cochran , 264 AD2d 699, 700 [2nd Dept. 1999]: "[p]ursuant to Election Law § 6—132(3) the identification of the notary by title alone is sufficient ( see, Matter of Bay v. Santoianni , 264 AD2d 488 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; Matter of Brown v. Suffolk County Board of Elections , 264 AD2d 489 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 167 ; Matter of Fuentes v. Lopez , 264 AD2d 490 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 166 ).") Based upon the forgoing, and the submissions of the parties [FN1] , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bayly v. Marshall
N.Y. Sup. Monroe · 2024 · confidence medium
Bd. of Elections , 49 Misc 3d 811, 814 [NY Sup. Ct. 2015] a ff'd , 131 AD3d 652 [2nd Dept. 2015], See also MacKay v. Cochran , 264 AD2d 699, 700 [2nd Dept. 1999]: "[p]ursuant to Election Law § 6—132(3) the identification of the notary by title alone is sufficient ( see, Matter of Bay v. Santoianni , 264 AD2d 488 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; Matter of Brown v. Suffolk County Board of Elections , 264 AD2d 489 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 167 ; Matter of Fuentes v. Lopez , 264 AD2d 490 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 166 ).") Based upon the forgoing, and the submissions of the parties [FN1] , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bayly v. Marshall
N.Y. Sup. Monroe · 2024 · confidence medium
Bd. of Elections , 49 Misc 3d 811, 814 [NY Sup. Ct. 2015] a ff'd , 131 AD3d 652 [2nd Dept. 2015], See also MacKay v. Cochran , 264 AD2d 699, 700 [2nd Dept. 1999]: "[p]ursuant to Election Law § 6—132(3) the identification of the notary by title alone is sufficient ( see, Matter of Bay v. Santoianni , 264 AD2d 488 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; Matter of Brown v. Suffolk County Board of Elections , 264 AD2d 489 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 167 ; Matter of Fuentes v. Lopez , 264 AD2d 490 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 166 ).") Based upon the forgoing, and the submissions of the parties [FN1] , it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Avella v. Johnson (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The requirement that the date — the “day and year” — accompany those signatures is a matter of prescribed content, not form (see Matter of DiSanzo v Addabbo, 76 AD3d 655 , 656 [2010]; Matter of Vassos v New York City Bd. of Elections, 286 AD2d 463, 464 [2001]; Matter of DeBerardinis v Sunderland, 277 AD2d 187, 188 [2000]; Matter of MacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 699-700 [1999]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Quinn v. Erie County Board of Elections
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The date is a matter of prescribed content and therefore strict compliance is required” (Matter of MacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 699-700 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Stevens v. Collins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
That discrepancy was fatal to the signatures appearing on that page (see Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716, 717 [1980]; Matter of MacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 700 [1999]; Matter of Burgess v D'Apice, 112 AD2d 1058, 1059 [1985]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Quinn v. Erie County Board of Elections
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The date is a matter of prescribed content and therefore strict compliance is required” (Matter of MacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 699-700 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DiSanzo v. Addabbo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Furthermore, as the subscribing witness wrote down the incorrect date on which two signatures were affixed to sheet No. 6, lines two and three, of the designating petition, those signatures should have been in validated (see Matter of Kent v Bass, 83 AD2d 898 [1981]; Matter of Nunley v Cohen, 258 App Div at 746 ; see generally Matter of Stoppenbach v Sweeney, 98 NY2d at 433 ; Matter ofMacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 699-700 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. New York State Board of Elections
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
While petitioner correctly states that the Election Law requires “strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” (Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774 [1981]; see Matter of Flach v DeBenedictus, 265 AD2d 670, 671 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 752 [1999]), unlike Election Law § 6-132, which governs the form and content of designating petitions (see Matter of Vassos v New York City Bd. of Elections, 286 AD2d 463, 464 [2001]; Matter of MacKay v Cochran, 264 AD2d 699, 699-700 [1999]), Election Law § 6-148 does not specifically require a date to appear on such…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Frank MacKay
v.
Jean W. Cochran, Appellants-Respondents, and Barbara Barci
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 10, 1999.
264 A.D.2d 699
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9075
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate certain designating petitions, the appeal, as limited by the brief of the appellants-respondents, is from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated September 3, 1999, as invalidated a petition designating Arnold B. Firestone and Valerie Hudgins as candidates at a primary election to be held on September 14, 1999, for the Independence Party positions of delegates to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Eighth Assembly District, and Amy J. Krinner and Robert DiGregorio as alternate delegates to that convention, and the cross appeal, as limited by the brief of the respondents-appellants, is from so much of the final order as denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate a petition designating Theresa Morris and Richard Morris as candidates at said primary election for the Independence Party positions of delegates, and Richard Harms and Susan Harms as alternates, to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Tenth Assembly District, and denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate a petition designating Arnold Firestone as a candidate at said primary election for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of County Legislator for the Tenth Legislative District.

Ordered that the final order is modified by (1) deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Theresa Morris and Richard Morris as candidates for the party positions of delegates, and Richard Harms and Susan Harms as alternates, to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Tenth Assembly District, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition, and (2) deleting therefrom the provision granting that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Arnold B. Firestone and Valerie Hud-gins as candidates for the party positions of delegates, and Amy J. Krinner and Robert DiGregorio as alternates, to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Eighth Assembly District, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the petition; as so modified, the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Election Law § 6-132 (2) requires that each sheet of a designating petition must contain a statement of a subscribing witness which shall be dated and signed by that witness. The[*700] date is a matter of prescribed content and therefore strict compliance is required (see, Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772; Matter of Frome v Board of Elections, 89 AD2d 950, 951). Here, the date is incomplete on sheets two and three of the Morris-Harms designating petition (see, Matter of Purtell v Kuczek, 112 AD2d 1092, 1093). Excluding the signatures on those two sheets, the number of remaining signatures on that petition is insufficient.

Pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (3) the identification of the notary by title alone is sufficient (see, Matter of Bay v San-toianni, 264 AD2d 488; Matter of Brown v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 264 AD2d 489; Matter of Fuentes v Lopez, 264 AD2d 490). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in invalidating the Firestone-Hudgins-Krinner-DiGregorio designating petition on the ground that the notaries failed to stamp the petition sheets.

The remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.