You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Pordum v. Suffoletta

Citations: 97 A.D.2d 982; 468 N.Y.S.2d 1022; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20838

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 3, 1983; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Judicial notice is taken that the petitioner is ineligible to assume the desired office, referencing the prior decision in Ernewein v Pordum, 96 AD2d 1014. The court agrees with Special Term’s conclusion that the Board of Elections correctly rejected the petitioner’s nominating petition. The appeal originates from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, presided over by Judge Francis, concerning Election Law 16-102. The order was entered on October 26, 1983, with judges Hancock Jr., Callahan, Doerr, Denman, and Moule present.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal under Election Law

Application: The appeal was made concerning an order related to Election Law 16-102, highlighting the procedural context of the case.

Reasoning: The appeal originates from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, presided over by Judge Francis, concerning Election Law 16-102.

Correct Rejection of Nominating Petition

Application: The court agreed with Special Term’s conclusion that the Board of Elections properly rejected the petitioner’s nominating petition.

Reasoning: The court agrees with Special Term’s conclusion that the Board of Elections correctly rejected the petitioner’s nominating petition.

Judicial Notice of Ineligibility

Application: The court took judicial notice of the petitioner's ineligibility to assume the desired office based on a prior decision.

Reasoning: Judicial notice is taken that the petitioner is ineligible to assume the desired office, referencing the prior decision in Ernewein v Pordum, 96 AD2d 1014.