Logan-Charles v. Rockland County Board of Elections

131 A.D.3d 635, 15 N.Y.S.3d 690

This text of 131 A.D.3d 635 (Logan-Charles v. Rockland County Board of Elections) 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
Logan-Charles v. Rockland County Board of Elections, 131 A.D.3d 635, 15 N.Y.S.3d 690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Samuel Tress as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 10, 2015, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Town Council, Town of Ramapo, and a related proceeding, among other things, to invalidate that designating petition, Samuel Tress appeals from so much of a final order of [636]*636the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Loehr, J.), dated August 7, 2015, as denied the petition to validate the designating petition and granted the petition to invalidate the designating petition.

Ordered that the final order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition to validate the designating petition is granted, and the petition to invalidate the designating petition is denied.

Election Law § 6-132 (2) requires that a subscribing witness list his or her current address on a designating petition sheet “so as to permit the rapid and efficient verification of signatures within the restrictive time periods imposed by the Election Law and thereby facilitate the discovery of fraud” (Matter of Henry v Trotto, 54 AD3d 424, 426 [2008]). We conclude that the petition sheets here satisfied this requirement. There was no evidence of fraud or an attempt to deceive (see Matter of Hoare v Davis, 207 AD2d 309 [1994]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition to validate the subject designating petition and should have denied the petition to invalidate the designating petition.

We need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions in light of our determination.

Mastro, J.P., Miller, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Henry v. Trotto
54 A.D.3d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Hoare v. Davis
207 A.D.2d 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 635, 15 N.Y.S.3d 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-charles-v-rockland-county-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-2015.