Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lerman v. Board Of Elections In The City Of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2017(La Brake.) As the Appellate Division, Third Department clearly stated in the decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeals: “[w]e agree with Supreme Court’s adoption of the reasoning advanced by respondents and employed in Lerman v Board of Elections [ 232 F3d 135 (2d Cir 2000), cert denied 533 US 915 (2001)], and hold that the witness residency requirement in Election Law § 6-132 (2) is unconstitutional on its face. 2001We agree with Supreme Court’s adoption of the reasoning advanced by respondents and employed in Lerman v Board of Elections (supra) and hold that the witness residency requirement in Election Law § 6-132 (2) is unconstitutional on its face. | 1 | 2 |
Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Electionsgreen1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 1 |
Hochhauser v. Grinblatgreen1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Powergreen1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 1 |
Alamo v. Blackgreen1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 1 |
O'BRIEN, ERIN J. v. PORDUM, FRANCIS J.green1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Heburngreen1 sentence2008Moreover, there was testimony at the hearing that the appellant did not personally witness and identify all of the signatures to which she attested as a subscribing witness under Election Law § 6-132 (2) (see Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo, 51 NY2d 747, 748 [1980]; Matter of Flower v D’Apice, 104 AD2d 578 [1984]; Matter of Layden v Gargiulo, 77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]; accord Matter of Heburn, 84 NY2d 168 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
MATTER OF HASKELL v. Gargiulogreen1 sentence2008Moreover, there was testimony at the hearing that the appellant did not personally witness and identify all of the signatures to which she attested as a subscribing witness under Election Law § 6-132 (2) (see Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo, 51 NY2d 747, 748 [1980]; Matter of Flower v D’Apice, 104 AD2d 578 [1984]; Matter of Layden v Gargiulo, 77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]; accord Matter of Heburn, 84 NY2d 168 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Layden v. Gargiulogreen1 sentence2008Moreover, there was testimony at the hearing that the appellant did not personally witness and identify all of the signatures to which she attested as a subscribing witness under Election Law § 6-132 (2) (see Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo, 51 NY2d 747, 748 [1980]; Matter of Flower v D’Apice, 104 AD2d 578 [1984]; Matter of Layden v Gargiulo, 77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]; accord Matter of Heburn, 84 NY2d 168 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Shoemaker v. Longogreen1 sentence1998The statement of a subscribing witness pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (2), particularly that portion setting forth the total number of signatures on a sheet of a designating petition, is “[elssential to the integrity of the petition process” (Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 NY2d 954 , 955; see, Matter of Shoemaker v Longo, 186 AD2d 979 , lv denied 80 NY2d 755 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quinlin v. Pierce
green
1 sentence2025Similarly, the error in Sheldon v. Bjork ( 142 AD3d 763 , [4th Dept. 2016]) was also inconsequential- the required "witness statements were printed on separate sheets that were stapled to the signature sheets". ( Id .) The statement of a subscribing witness pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (2) is "[e]ssential to the integrity of the petition process". ( Quinlin v. Pierce , 254 AD2d 690 [4th Dept. 1998]; Jonas v. Velez , 65 NY2d 954 [1985].) The defect herein resulted in a designating petition that did not substantially comply with Election Law § 6-132 (2). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sheldon v. Bjork
green
1 sentence2025Similarly, the error in Sheldon v. Bjork ( 142 AD3d 763 , [4th Dept. 2016]) was also inconsequential- the required "witness statements were printed on separate sheets that were stapled to the signature sheets". ( Id .) The statement of a subscribing witness pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (2) is "[e]ssential to the integrity of the petition process". ( Quinlin v. Pierce , 254 AD2d 690 [4th Dept. 1998]; Jonas v. Velez , 65 NY2d 954 [1985].) The defect herein resulted in a designating petition that did not substantially comply with Election Law § 6-132 (2). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bailey v. Power
neutral
1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Craig v. Borrero
neutral
1 sentence2025Thus, the petition is fatally defective. ( Craig v. Borrero , 172 AD3d 1944 , 1945 [4th Dept. 2019]: "The designating petition did not substantially comply with section 6-132 (2) because it failed to include, among other things, any language in the witness statements identifying the party affiliation of the witnesses ( see Matter of Bailey v Power , 12 Misc 2d 105, 106 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1958], affd 6 AD2d 996 [2d Dept 1958]; see generally Matter of Hochhauser v Grinblat , 307 AD2d 1007, 1008 [2d Dept 2003])." See also Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections , 131 AD3d 806, 807 [4th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
New York State Board of Elections v. Lerman
green
1 sentence2017(La Brake.) As the Appellate Division, Third Department clearly stated in the decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeals: “[w]e agree with Supreme Court’s adoption of the reasoning advanced by respondents and employed in Lerman v Board of Elections [ 232 F3d 135 (2d Cir 2000), cert denied 533 US 915 (2001)], and hold that the witness residency requirement in Election Law § 6-132 (2) is unconstitutional on its face. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Flower v. D'Apice
green
1 sentence2008Moreover, there was testimony at the hearing that the appellant did not personally witness and identify all of the signatures to which she attested as a subscribing witness under Election Law § 6-132 (2) (see Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo, 51 NY2d 747, 748 [1980]; Matter of Flower v D’Apice, 104 AD2d 578 [1984]; Matter of Layden v Gargiulo, 77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]; accord Matter of Heburn, 84 NY2d 168 [1994]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.