Case Name: In the Matter of the Application for an Order to Strike from the Enrollment Book of the Sixteenth Election District of the First Assembly District in the County of New York the Name of James O'Brien. Dominick Dalessandro, Appellant; John R. Voorhis and Others, Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-02-15
Citations: 117 A.D. 628
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application for an Order to Strike from the Enrollment Book of the Sixteenth Election District of the First Assembly District in the County of New York the Name of James O’Brien. Dominick Dalessandro, Appellant; John R. Voorhis and Others, Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 628–637

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application for an Order to Strike from the Enrollment Book of the Sixteenth Election District of the First Assembly District in the County of New York the Name of James O’Brien. Dominick Dalessandro, Appellant; John R. Voorhis and Others, Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.
First Department,
February 15, 1907.
Appeal by the applicant, Dominick Dalessandro, from an , order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered, in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 23d day of Hovember, 1906, denying the appellant’s application to strike the name of James O’Brien from the enrollment book of the sixteenth election district of the first Assembly district in the county of Hew York.
James H. Hickey, for the appellant.
Theodore Connoly, for the respondents.
See Matter of Titus (ante, p. 621).— [Rep.

Opinion:
Laughlin, J. :
In this case the affidavit which asserts the facts positively shows that the elector whose name it is sought to strike from the enrollment book, enrolled from Ho. 9 Mulberry street, and that the affiant resides at that number, but it does not show whether it is a private house or boarding house or a tenement, or whether the affiant is the janitor, lessee or proprietor, or that he is in a position to know the facts. We are of opinion that the rule laid down in the opinion in Matter of Titus (117 App. Div. 621), argued and decided herewith, should be applied here, and that the order should be affirmed upon the authority of the decision in that matter.
Patterson, P. J., concurred; Clarke and Ingraham, J., dissented.