LeBron v. Clyne

65 A.D.3d 801, 883 N.Y.S.2d 833
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 801 (LeBron v. Clyne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
LeBron v. Clyne, 65 A.D.3d 801, 883 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J), entered August 7, 2009 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare invalid the designating petitions naming respondents Gerald D. Jennings, Betty Barnette, Leif C. Engstrom and Carolyn McLaughlin as Independence Party candidates for certain public offices in the City of Albany at the September 15, 2009 primary election.

Respondents Gerald D. Jennings, Betty Barnette, Leif C. Engstrom and Carolyn McLaughlin (hereinafter collectively referred to as respondents) are Democratic Party candidates seeking election to the respective public offices of Mayor, Treasurer, Chief Auditor and Common Council President in the City of Albany. Their names appeared on joint designating petitions [802]*802purporting to nominate them as Independence Party candidates for the aforesaid city offices at the September 15, 2009 primary election. A number of these petitions were not circulated by members of the Independence Party, but rather by notaries public or commissioners of deeds as authorized by Election Law § 6-132 (3). Petitioner, a citizen objector and aggrieved candidate for the office of Mayor, filed objections to the designating petitions with the Albany County Board of Elections. He subsequently commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 seeking to invalidate the designating petitions on the basis, among others, that the signatures of the persons signing the petitions in the presence of a notary public or commissioner of deeds were not obtained in accordance with the requirements of Election Law § 6-132 (3). Respondent Ellen Donovan, an Independence Party member and signatory to one of the designating petitions, and respondent Albany County Independence Committee (hereinafter collectively referred to as intervenors), intervened in this proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court invalidated the subject petitions for noncompliance with the requirements of Election Law § 6-132 (3) and enjoined the Albany County Board of Elections from placing respondents’ names on the ballot as Independence Party candidates at the primary election. Respondents and intervenors now appeal.

As stipulated by the parties, the signatories were not sworn, questioned about the statements contained in the petition or asked to affirm the truth of the information set forth therein. Nor did the notaries public and commissioners of deeds make any effort to obtain from the signatories either an affirmation or acknowledgment as to the truthfulness of their statements (see Election Law § 6-132 [3]; Matter of Liebler v Friedman, 54 AD3d 697, 697-698 [2008]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 428 [2008]). Thus, Supreme Court properly invalidated the petitions.

Nor do we find that Election Law § 6-132 (3) unconstitutionally burdens intervenors’ First Amendment rights of political expression and free association.

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

Related

Matter of Mertz v. Bradshaw
131 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MacKenzie v. Ghartey
131 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Fuchs v. Itzkowitz
120 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Bonner v. Negron
87 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Nolin v. McNally
87 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 A.D.3d 801, 883 N.Y.S.2d 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lebron-v-clyne-nyappdiv-2009.