TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Popkin v. Umane

In the Matter of Gary S. Popkin v. Frederic M. Umane

Popkin v. Umane, 22 A.D.3d 613 (2005)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 12, 2005
Citations
22 A.D.3d 613801 N.Y.S.2d 774

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate so much of a petition as nominated Gary S. Popkin as a candidate in the general election to be held on November 8, 2005, for the public office of Brooklyn Borough President, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 22, 2005, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the independent nominating petition should not have been declared invalid by the New York City Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board). While this Court disapproves of the inclusion of out-of-district signatures, we reject the Board’s contention that the inclusion of such signatures invalidated the candidate’s nominating petition where the record fails to disclose any fraud or deception in the acquisition of those signatures (see Matter of Hargett v Green, 186 AD2d 803 [1992]; Matter of Garson v Cohen, 153 AD2d 718 [1989]). Likewise, the fact that the petition purported to nominate candidates from different political units did not render it invalid (see Matter of Love v Board of Elections of City *614 of N.Y., 74 NY2d 799 [1989]; see also Matter of Simpson v Cohen, 252 App Div 275 [1937]).

Discounting the out-of-district signatures, which do not count towards nomination, the nominating petition contained a sufficient number of signatures (see Election Law § 6-138 [1]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2006: 12010: 220062026peak 2010 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Hargett v. Green, 186 A.D.2d 803 (1992) 4
Love v. Bd. of Elections of the City of N.Y., 544 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1989) 3
Simpson v. Cohen, 252 A.D. 275 (1937) 3
Garson v. Cohen, 153 A.D.2d 718 (1989) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list