Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Board of Supervisors v. Aulisi

46 N.Y.2d 731

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1978-12-01
Topic
general

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. Judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice T. Paul Kane at the Appellate Division. It is noted additionally that a new District Attorney has been elected in the County of Montgomery to take office on January 1, 1979.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Board of Supervisors v. Aulisi. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
MATTER OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. AULISI,46 N.Y.2d 731(1978)
In the Matter of BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Respondent, v.
ARTHUR C. AULISI, as a Justice of the Supreme Court, et al., Appellants, and
CHARLES E. HARDIES, JR., as District Attorney of the County of Montgomery,
Respondent.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued November 28, 1978
Decided December 1, 1978
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.Page 732
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]Page 733
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Robert D. McDougallandRuth Kessler Tochof counsel), for Justice ARTHUR C. AULISI, appellant.Richard T. Horigan,appellantpro se.William E. Moore, County Attorney,for Board of Supervisors of Montgomery County, respondent.
MEMORANDUM.

Judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice T. PAUL KANE at the Appellate Division. It is noted additionally that a new District Attorney has been elected in the County of Montgomery to take office on January 1, 1979. These events will moot the necessity for displacing the regularly elected District Attorney based on whatever disqualification has arisen because of past associations and activity or omissions. Should the problem which gave occasion to the designation invalidated in this proceeding recur, recourse, if supported by a proper basis, may be had to the Governor of the State for action in accordance with his powers under the State Constitution (art XIII, § 13) and subdivision 2 of section63of the Executive Law.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUSHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.