Case Name: In the Matter of the Application of Henry A. Shaeffer and George Stephenson, Comprising the Board of Elections of Saratoga County, for an Order Determining the Form and Contents of the Official Ballot to Be Placed upon Voting Machines in Saratoga County. Angus Garrett, Appellant; George Anderson, Board of Elections of Saratoga County, Republican County Committee and Democratic County Committee, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-11-01
Citations: 237 A.D. 278
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Henry A. Shaeffer and George Stephenson, Comprising the Board of Elections of Saratoga County, for an Order Determining the Form and Contents of the Official Ballot to Be Placed upon Voting Machines in Saratoga County. Angus Garrett, Appellant; George Anderson, Board of Elections of Saratoga County, Republican County Committee and Democratic County Committee, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 237
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application of Henry A. Shaeffer and George Stephenson, Comprising the Board of Elections of Saratoga County, for an Order Determining the Form and Contents of the Official Ballot to Be Placed upon Voting Machines in Saratoga County. Angus Garrett, Appellant; George Anderson, Board of Elections of Saratoga County, Republican County Committee and Democratic County Committee, Respondents.
Third Department,
November 1, 1932.
George E. O’Connor, for the appellant.
John W. Nichols, County Attorney, for the respondents, Board of Elections.
Leary & Fullerton, for the Republican County Committee and George Anderson.
William O’Brien, for the Democratic County Committee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Section 249 of the Election Law, as it now stands (Laws of 1932, chap. 587), contains no provision expressly covering the case here presented. It does require, however, in a case when a candidate is the nominee of more than one party, and also of one or more independent bodies, that his name shall appear in the row of each party, but the emblem of such independent body shall appear in only one of the party rows. The Legislature evidently perceived no resulting confusion and disadvantage from such an arrangement, and hence there seems no reason for apprehending confusion and disadvantage in the case now presented. (See Matter of Haskell v. Voorhis, 246 N. Y. 256.)
We do not now decide that prejudice to a candidate may not result in any case; that must be determined upon the facts in each case.
Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Hill, Rhodes and Crapser, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.