Matter of Gruskoff v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gruskoff v. County of Suffolk

132 A.D.3d 923, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 2015

Docket2015-09953

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 923 (Matter of Gruskoff v. County of Suffolk) 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

Matter of Gruskoff v. County of Suffolk, 132 A.D.3d 923, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*924 In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§ 4-108 and 16-104, inter alia, to invalidate a referendum regarding the establishment of Suffolk County Sewer District No. 26, which is to appear on the ballot in a general election to be held on November 3, 2015, in Suffolk County, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated October 14, 2015, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner seeks, among other things, to invalidate a referendum regarding the establishment of Suffolk County Sewer District No. 26, which is to appear on the ballot in a general election to be held on November 3, 2015, in Suffolk County.

Election Law § 4-108 (2) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he form in which [a] proposed . . . proposition . . . is to be submitted shall consist of only an abbreviated title indicating . . . in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and every-day meanings, the subject matter of the . . . proposition.” Section 4-108 (2) therefore authorizes a challenge to a ballot proposal or abstract that is “misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with existing law” (Matter of Gaughan v Mohr, 77 AD3d 1475, 1476-1477 [2010]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the referendum question is not misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with existing law (see Matter of Gaughan v Mohr, 77 AD3d at 1476-1477; cf. Matter of Mavromatis v Town of W. Seneca, 55 AD3d 1455, 1456 [2008]; Matter of Marcoccia v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 309 AD2d 958, 959 [2003]; Matter of Association for Better Long Is. v County of Suffolk, 243 AD2d 560, 561 [1997]; Matter of Sinawski v Cuevas, 123 AD2d 548, 548 [1986]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

*924 In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law §§ 4-108 and 16-104, inter alia, to invalidate a referendum regarding the establishment of Suffolk County Sewer District No. 26, which is to appear on the ballot in a general election to be held on November 3, 2015, in Suffolk County, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated October 14, 2015, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner seeks, among other things, to invalidate a referendum regarding the establishment of Suffolk County Sewer District No. 26, which is to appear on the ballot in a general election to be held on November 3, 2015, in Suffolk County.

Election Law § 4-108 (2) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he form in which [a] proposed . . . proposition . . . is to be submitted shall consist of only an abbreviated title indicating . . . in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and every-day meanings, the subject matter of the . . . proposition.” Section 4-108 (2) therefore authorizes a challenge to a ballot proposal or abstract that is “misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with existing law” (Matter of Gaughan v Mohr, 77 AD3d 1475, 1476-1477 [2010]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the referendum question is not misleading, ambiguous, illegal, or inconsistent with existing law (see Matter of Gaughan v Mohr, 77 AD3d at 1476-1477; cf. Matter of Mavromatis v Town of W. Seneca, 55 AD3d 1455, 1456 [2008]; Matter of Marcoccia v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 309 AD2d 958, 959 [2003]; Matter of Association for Better Long Is. v County of Suffolk, 243 AD2d 560, 561 [1997]; Matter of Sinawski v Cuevas, 123 AD2d 548, 548 [1986]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 923, 18 N.Y.S.3d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gruskoff-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack