Case Name: In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v. Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Carol A. Slattery, Appellant; In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v. Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Fannie Della Franca, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1977-08-31
Citations: 42 N.Y.2d 988
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Carol A. Slattery, Appellant. In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Fannie Della Franca, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Carol A. Slattery, Appellant. In the Matter of John Gallagher, Respondent, v Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and Fannie Della Franca, Appellant.
Argued August 30, 1977;
decided August 31, 1977
Martin J. Burgess, Jr., for appellants.
Steven M. Schapiro for petitioner-respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The orders of the Appellate Division should be reversed.
It is clear from the statute (Election Law, § 136, subd 6, par [j]) that if the political subdivision in question, here the town, is entirely within a senatorial district that the number of signatures required need not exceed the requirement for the senatorial district. That requirement is for 1,000 signatures (Election Law, § 136, subd 6, par [h]) and, as each of the appellants had more than that amount, both of the designating petitions were properly accepted and filed by the Board of Elections. In Matter of Stoller v Ackerson (30 NY2d 877) there was no contention raised or tender of evidence made on the issue here relevant.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
In each case: Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, reinstated in a memorandum.