Leonard v. Pradhan

286 A.D.2d 459, 729 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 22, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 459 (Leonard v. Pradhan) 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
Leonard v. Pradhan, 286 A.D.2d 459, 729 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Vij ayendranath P. Pradhan as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 11, 2001, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Supervisor for the Town of Clarkstown, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated August 9, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the designating petition is invalidated, and the matter is remitted to the Rock-land County Board of Elections to remove the name of Vij ayendranath P. Pradhan from the appropriate ballot.

As a general rule, where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence, “a candidate’s designating petition will be invalidated on the ground that some signatures have been obtained by fraud only if there is a showing that the entire designating petition is ‘permeated with fraud’ ” (Matter of MacDougall v Board of Elections, 133 AD2d 198, quoting Matter of Ferraro v McNab, 60 NY2d 601, 603). Where, as here, the candidate himself, as a subscribing witness, has participated in the fraud, the petition should be invalidated even if there is a sufficient number of valid signatures independent of those fraudulently procured (see, Matter of MacDougall v Board of Elections, supra, at 198). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sekarore v. Harvey
2025 NY Slip Op 31527(U) (New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, 2025)
Matter of Mattice v. Hammond
131 A.D.3d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Felder v. Storobin
100 A.D.3d 11 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Valenti v. Bugbee
88 A.D.3d 1056 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bonner v. Negron
87 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Volino v. Calvi
87 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Cirillo v. Gardiner
65 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tapper v. Sampel
54 A.D.3d 435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Drace v. Sayegh
43 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McHugh v. Comella
307 A.D.2d 1069 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D.2d 459, 729 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-pradhan-nyappdiv-2001.