Case Name: In the Matter of the Objections to the Certificate of Nomination for Member of Assembly of the Second Assembly District of Westchester County; Richard S. Emmet, Jr., Appellant; Joseph E. Ennis, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 9 A.D. 237
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Objections to the Certificate of Nomination for Member of Assembly of the Second Assembly District of Westchester County; Richard S. Emmet, Jr., Appellant; Joseph E. Ennis, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 237–247

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Objections to the Certificate of Nomination for Member of Assembly of the Second Assembly District of Westchester County; Richard S. Emmet, Jr., Appellant; Joseph E. Ennis, Respondent.
Election Law—when it is too late, to review an order reversing the decision of the filing officer as to who is the regular nominee of a party.
An appeal from an order, reversing a decision made by the county clerk of Westchester county, determining that one of two rival claimants was the regular nominee of the Republican party for the office of member of Assembly in the second Assembly district of Westchester county, and directing that his name be placed upon the official ballot in the column of the Republican party, came on to be heard before the Appellate Division eight days before the date of the election at which the office was to be filled.
Section 56 of chapter 810 of the Laws of 1895 provides that the court may “ make such order in the premises as justice may require,” but by section 56 of chapter 909 of the Laws of 1896 it is provided that “such order must be made on or before the last day fixed for filing certificates of nomination to fill vacancies.”
Held. that the Appellate Division could make no order which would be effective, and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Hatch, J"., dissented.
Appeal by Richard S. Emmet, Jr., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Westchester Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 19th day of October, 1896, which reversed the decision of the county clerk of Westchester county, which determined that Richard S. Emmet, Jr., was the regular Republican nominee for member of Assembly in the second Assembly district of Westchester county, and which directed the said county clerk to place the name of Joseph E. Ennis upon the official ballot in the column of the Republican party, for said office of member of Assembly. The facts more fully appear in the dissenting opinion of Hatch, J.
The following opinion of Judge Brown was delivered orally.
James M. Hunt and Roger M. Sherman, for the appellant.
H. O. Henderson, for the respondent.
On an appeal to the Court of Appeals the order of the Appellate Division in this case was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Appellate Division for such further proceedings as it might deem proper.— [Rep.

Opinion:
Brown, P. J.:
In this case, which is entitled " In'the .Matter of the Objections to the Certificate of nomination for Member of Assembly of the Second Assembly District of Westchester County," thé court is of the opinion that it can make no effective order, in the case. The statute of 1895 (Chap. 810, § 56) provided that the court could "make such -order in the premises as justice may require." By the amendment made to the law in 1896 (Chap. 909, § 56) it was further provided that " such order must be. made on or before the last day fixed for filing certificates of nomination's to fill vacancies with such officer as provided in subdivision one of section sixty-six of this article." That subdivision requires that the certificate of nomination for member of Assembly shall be filed with the clerk fifteen days before the election, so that, in compliance with that provision of the statute, it is impossible for the court to make any order that would be effective in this matter' The .case from the fourth department, to which our attention was called, was decided under the act of 1895,' and has no application to this case. There fore, the appeal that is taken is dismissed. That is the view of three . judges of the court. Judge Hatch has dissented from that view, and he has expressed the views which he has taken in a written opinion which will be filed with the clerk. '
• All concurred, except Hatch, J., dissenting, and Bartlett, J., not sitting.