Brownson v. Andrews

New York Court of Appeals

Brownson v. Andrews

687 N.E.2d 1327, 90 N.Y.2d 949, 665 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3202

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 687 N.E.2d 1327 (Brownson v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brownson v. Andrews, 687 N.E.2d 1327, 90 N.Y.2d 949, 665 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3202 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, the petition granted, the three write-in ballots at issue declared invalid, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

[950]*950The courts below erred by validating the out-of-column write-in ballots. Write-in ballots for this primary election were to be written in column three. Here, all three contested ballots were written in column four, an otherwise blank and unused column. Accordingly, those ballots were not cast in their designated and appropriate place on the machine. Therefore, they are void and cannot be counted (see, Matter of Haynie v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 718, 719; Election Law § 8-308 [3]). As previously noted, the Election Law mandates this result "in clear and unequivocal terms” (Haynie, supra, at 719). Thus, Matter of Daly v Jayne (233 AD2d 960) should not be followed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, the petition granted, the three write-in ballots at issue declared invalid, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

[950]*950The courts below erred by validating the out-of-column write-in ballots. Write-in ballots for this primary election were to be written in column three. Here, all three contested ballots were written in column four, an otherwise blank and unused column. Accordingly, those ballots were not cast in their designated and appropriate place on the machine. Therefore, they are void and cannot be counted (see, Matter of Haynie v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 718, 719; Election Law § 8-308 [3]). As previously noted, the Election Law mandates this result "in clear and unequivocal terms” (Haynie, supra, at 719). Thus, Matter of Daly v Jayne (233 AD2d 960) should not be followed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 N.E.2d 1327, 90 N.Y.2d 949, 665 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brownson-v-andrews-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack