Matter of Jones v Thompson 2024 NY Slip Op 31575(U) May 2, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 510864/24 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
At the Special Election Part 1 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at. 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 2nd day of May, 2024.
P :RESENT:
HON. PETER P. SWEENEY, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY T. JONES, PETITIONER-OBJEC TOR-AGGRIEVED CANDIDA TE,
. -against- Index No. 510864/24
JAMMEL THOMPSON, DION C. QUAMINA, AND CLIFTON A. HINTON,
RESPONDENTS-CA NDIDATES,
-AND-
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT r-e-
.------------------------ .------------------------------------------·---X The following e-filed papers read herein:
Order to Show Cause/Petition - - - - - - - - - - · 1-2 Other papers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3-9
'- Upon the foregoing papers, candidate-petitio ner Anthony T. Jones moves, pursuant ·
to CPLR 2221 (d), for leave to reargue the court's order dated April 29, 2024 (the prior
order) which denied and dismissed petitioner's invalidating petition.
As an initial matter, the court notes that respondent'Jamm el Thompson was ruled
off the ballot by the respondent Board of Elections in the City of New York {the Board) 1
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
and statute of limitations for commencmg a validating. proceeding has expired. ,- . . . . . .
Accordingly, the instant invalidating petition is only relevant with respect to respondents-
candidates Quamina and Hinton. Further, at oral argument on'the motion to reargue, and
after receiving additional information from the Board of Elections, it has become apparent .
that some of the facts set.forth in the prior order are incorrect and should thus be corrected
· for the record._ In particular, the specifications of objections (Spec # 81) filed against
respondent Quamina's designating petition were not rejected by the Board, andthe Board's
Commissioners confirmed a clerk's report findi_ng that respondent Quamina's petition ha_d
548 valid signatures, which is 48 more than necessary for placement on the ballot.
However, the specifications of objections filed by petitioner-objector-aggrieved candidate
Jones with the Board were for the wrong designating petition, thereby necessitating thaf
petitioner proceed againstrespondents in his capacity as an aggrieved candidate by filing
de-novo specifications of objections with the court. Furthermore, respondents Hinton and
Quamina .were present in the courtroom on the initial April 22, 2024 return date and ·
informed of the April 24, 2024 adjourn date (to await the Board's rulings) and both ofthe~e -
respondents appe·ared before the court on that adjourn date. Finally, although the subject _. . ' . .
of default was discussed on. the April 24, 2024 adjourn date; petitioner did not move to_
hold respondents in default at that time.
Turning to the substance of the motion to reargue, petitioner contends that he has
been treated inequitably by the court inasmuch as it dismissed his invalidating proceeding - based upon the Special Election Part Rule prohibiting the submission of new specifications
of objections after the initial calendar call, but allowed respondents to move to dismiss
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
notwithstanding the fact that respondents did not file an answer and did not move to dismiss
on the initial return date. Petitioner argues that the Special Election Part Rules require that
all motions to dismiss be filed no later than the call of the calendar on the initial return date
and prohibits the submission of further proof after such time. 1 In addition, the -petitioner
maintains that the court improperly dismissed the invalidating petition as against
respondent Hinton inasmuch as respondent Quainina is the on~y party who moved to
dismiss.
- As the court stated in the prior order, notwithstanding the Special Election Part
Rules regarding the filing of motions, under the circumstances of this case, it. would be .
improper to preclude respondents from moving to dismiss on the basis of incorrect
specifications of objections. In particular, the court notes that petitioner filed via NYSCEF
the subject de-novo specifications of objections a mere six and a half hours (at 3 :41 a.m.)
before the calendar call on the initial return date, thereby depriving respondents of a fair
and timely opportunity to respond. Further, at oral argument on the motion to reargue,
respondent Quamina stated that he did not receive the incorrect specifications of objections
and remained unaware of the defect until the evening of April 22, 2024, when he was
provided with a copy of the specifications by an individual with access to NYSCEF. In ·
this regard, the court notes that respondent did not consent to service by Electronic Filing.
1 As the court noted in the prior order, the reason why the court precludes parties from submitting
additional specifications of objections after the initial calendar call is that such practice would . allow for the review of these specifications to continue indefinitely, and prevent the court from c~mpleting its work before the deadline for perfecting appeals. Thus, the Special Election Part Rules establish a firm deadline for the submission of specifications of objections. 3
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
Once respondent Quamina had the information needed to make his motion, he did so
promptly on the next adjourn date. In contrast, petitioner had no valid excuse for filing the
wrong specifications of objections with the court. Moreover, the court notes that
respondent's motion to dismiss was not based upon "further proof' or new evidence that.
was required to be submitted no later than the initial return date. It was based upon the
incorrect specifications of objections that were already part of the record iri this case as of
the early morning hours of April 22, 2024. In addition, while the Special Election Part
Rules require that all answers be filed on the initial return date, there is nothing in the Rules
that precludes a party who fails to file an answer from opposing an invalidating/validating
petition and/or filing a motion to dismiss.
Turning to petitioner's contention that the court should not have granted the motion
to dismiss as against respondent Hinton, the court notes that Mr. Hinton was present in
court on the April 24, 2024 adjourn date and stood before the court, along with respondent
Quamina, at the time the motion to dismiss was orally made. Moreover, the court's ruling
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Jones v Thompson 2024 NY Slip Op 31575(U) May 2, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 510864/24 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
At the Special Election Part 1 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at. 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 2nd day of May, 2024.
P :RESENT:
HON. PETER P. SWEENEY, Justice. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY T. JONES, PETITIONER-OBJEC TOR-AGGRIEVED CANDIDA TE,
. -against- Index No. 510864/24
JAMMEL THOMPSON, DION C. QUAMINA, AND CLIFTON A. HINTON,
RESPONDENTS-CA NDIDATES,
-AND-
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT r-e-
.------------------------ .------------------------------------------·---X The following e-filed papers read herein:
Order to Show Cause/Petition - - - - - - - - - - · 1-2 Other papers_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3-9
'- Upon the foregoing papers, candidate-petitio ner Anthony T. Jones moves, pursuant ·
to CPLR 2221 (d), for leave to reargue the court's order dated April 29, 2024 (the prior
order) which denied and dismissed petitioner's invalidating petition.
As an initial matter, the court notes that respondent'Jamm el Thompson was ruled
off the ballot by the respondent Board of Elections in the City of New York {the Board) 1
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
and statute of limitations for commencmg a validating. proceeding has expired. ,- . . . . . .
Accordingly, the instant invalidating petition is only relevant with respect to respondents-
candidates Quamina and Hinton. Further, at oral argument on'the motion to reargue, and
after receiving additional information from the Board of Elections, it has become apparent .
that some of the facts set.forth in the prior order are incorrect and should thus be corrected
· for the record._ In particular, the specifications of objections (Spec # 81) filed against
respondent Quamina's designating petition were not rejected by the Board, andthe Board's
Commissioners confirmed a clerk's report findi_ng that respondent Quamina's petition ha_d
548 valid signatures, which is 48 more than necessary for placement on the ballot.
However, the specifications of objections filed by petitioner-objector-aggrieved candidate
Jones with the Board were for the wrong designating petition, thereby necessitating thaf
petitioner proceed againstrespondents in his capacity as an aggrieved candidate by filing
de-novo specifications of objections with the court. Furthermore, respondents Hinton and
Quamina .were present in the courtroom on the initial April 22, 2024 return date and ·
informed of the April 24, 2024 adjourn date (to await the Board's rulings) and both ofthe~e -
respondents appe·ared before the court on that adjourn date. Finally, although the subject _. . ' . .
of default was discussed on. the April 24, 2024 adjourn date; petitioner did not move to_
hold respondents in default at that time.
Turning to the substance of the motion to reargue, petitioner contends that he has
been treated inequitably by the court inasmuch as it dismissed his invalidating proceeding - based upon the Special Election Part Rule prohibiting the submission of new specifications
of objections after the initial calendar call, but allowed respondents to move to dismiss
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
notwithstanding the fact that respondents did not file an answer and did not move to dismiss
on the initial return date. Petitioner argues that the Special Election Part Rules require that
all motions to dismiss be filed no later than the call of the calendar on the initial return date
and prohibits the submission of further proof after such time. 1 In addition, the -petitioner
maintains that the court improperly dismissed the invalidating petition as against
respondent Hinton inasmuch as respondent Quainina is the on~y party who moved to
dismiss.
- As the court stated in the prior order, notwithstanding the Special Election Part
Rules regarding the filing of motions, under the circumstances of this case, it. would be .
improper to preclude respondents from moving to dismiss on the basis of incorrect
specifications of objections. In particular, the court notes that petitioner filed via NYSCEF
the subject de-novo specifications of objections a mere six and a half hours (at 3 :41 a.m.)
before the calendar call on the initial return date, thereby depriving respondents of a fair
and timely opportunity to respond. Further, at oral argument on the motion to reargue,
respondent Quamina stated that he did not receive the incorrect specifications of objections
and remained unaware of the defect until the evening of April 22, 2024, when he was
provided with a copy of the specifications by an individual with access to NYSCEF. In ·
this regard, the court notes that respondent did not consent to service by Electronic Filing.
1 As the court noted in the prior order, the reason why the court precludes parties from submitting
additional specifications of objections after the initial calendar call is that such practice would . allow for the review of these specifications to continue indefinitely, and prevent the court from c~mpleting its work before the deadline for perfecting appeals. Thus, the Special Election Part Rules establish a firm deadline for the submission of specifications of objections. 3
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
Once respondent Quamina had the information needed to make his motion, he did so
promptly on the next adjourn date. In contrast, petitioner had no valid excuse for filing the
wrong specifications of objections with the court. Moreover, the court notes that
respondent's motion to dismiss was not based upon "further proof' or new evidence that.
was required to be submitted no later than the initial return date. It was based upon the
incorrect specifications of objections that were already part of the record iri this case as of
the early morning hours of April 22, 2024. In addition, while the Special Election Part
Rules require that all answers be filed on the initial return date, there is nothing in the Rules
that precludes a party who fails to file an answer from opposing an invalidating/validating
petition and/or filing a motion to dismiss.
Turning to petitioner's contention that the court should not have granted the motion
to dismiss as against respondent Hinton, the court notes that Mr. Hinton was present in
court on the April 24, 2024 adjourn date and stood before the court, along with respondent
Quamina, at the time the motion to dismiss was orally made. Moreover, the court's ruling
dismissing the invalidating proceeding was based upon its determination that the correct
specifications of objections were untimely filed, which applies to all parties.
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024
Accordingly, petitioner's motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon
reargument, the court adheres to its determination in the prior order.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
ENT
J.S.C.
HON. PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C.
5 of 5 [* 5]