General
In the Matter of Ardeth Houde et al., Appellants, v. Ronald Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of Anthony F. Bonadio et al., Respondents, v. Robert A. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 4.); In the Matter of Jean B. Higgins, Respondent, v. Ardeth L. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.); In the Matter of David C. King, Respondent, v. Ardeth L. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 3.)
143 A.D.2d 504·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1988·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Ardeth Houde et al., Appellants, v Ronald Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Anthony F. Bonadio et al., Respondents, v Robert A. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Jean B. Higgins, Respondent, v Ardeth L. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of David C. King, Respondent, v Ardeth L. Houde, Appellant, and Ronald J. Starkweather et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the County of Monroe, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 3.)
[MAJORITY]
Motions to dismiss appeal denied and orders unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In affirming the orders, we note that the Board of Elections invalidated 162 signatures on petitioner’s designating petition allegedly due to incomplete addresses of the subscribing witnesses. Upon our review of the record, we find that this was error. The witnesses supplied all the information mandated by Election Law § 6-132 and these signatures should be restored. This new finding of fact, however, does not change the result. (Appeal from orders of Supreme Court, Monroe County, DePasquale, J. — Election Law.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 29, 1988.)