Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of BERNARD MARCUS, Appellant, against S. HOWARD COHEN et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York. ALBERT D. SCHANZER et al., Respondents.

Per Curiam.

The order below is affirmed, without costs. The court, however, does not approve of the statement in the opinion of the Appellate Division that the executive committee is given no authority under the Election Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 17) to determine which of conflicting valid petitions should be recognized, if such statement is to be construed as holding that the action of the executive committee is to be given no weight in determining the question. ( Matter of Trosk v. Cohen, 262 N.Y. 430.)

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF MARCUS v. COHEN
(Oct 27, 1933)