Matter of Merrill v. Fritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Merrill v. Fritz

120 A.D.3d 689, 991 N.Y.S.2d 323

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

DecidedAugust 20, 2014

Docket2014-07785

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 689 (Matter of Merrill v. Fritz) 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 Merrill v. Fritz, 120 A.D.3d 689, 991 N.Y.S.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Joseph L. Fritz as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2014, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of State Senator for the 3rd Senatorial District, and a related proceeding, inter alia, to validate that designating petition, Joseph L. Fritz appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leo, J.), dated August 15, 2014, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition, dismissed that proceeding, and directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections to refrain from placing the name of Joseph L. Fritz on the ballot.

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

The Supreme Court properly invalidated the appellant’s designating petition. “An alteration or correction of information appearing on a signature line, other than the signature itself and the date, shall not invalidate such signature” (Election Law § 6-134 [6] [emphasis added]). While the provisions of the Election Law are to be “liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” (Election Law § 6-134 [10]), here, the Supreme Court properly found that the numerous instances of unexplained and uninitialed alterations to the dates on numerous signature lines, many of which were contained on petition sheets for which the appellant himself was the subscribing witness, required the invalidation of the designating petition (see Matter of McGuire v Gamache, 5 NY3d 444, 448 [2005]; Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 NY2d 954, 955 [1985]). While the appellant testified at the hearing, he did not provide an adequate explanation for the uninitialed changes, and we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that his testimony was “unreliable, not tenable, and not worthy of belief’ (see Matter of Kraham v Rabbitt, 11 AD3d 808 [2004]; cf. Matter of Henry v Trotto, 54 AD3d 424 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Joseph L. Fritz as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2014, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of State Senator for the 3rd Senatorial District, and a related proceeding, inter alia, to validate that designating petition, Joseph L. Fritz appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leo, J.), dated August 15, 2014, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition, dismissed that proceeding, and directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections to refrain from placing the name of Joseph L. Fritz on the ballot.

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

The Supreme Court properly invalidated the appellant’s designating petition. “An alteration or correction of information appearing on a signature line, other than the signature itself and the date, shall not invalidate such signature” (Election Law § 6-134 [6] [emphasis added]). While the provisions of the Election Law are to be “liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” (Election Law § 6-134 [10]), here, the Supreme Court properly found that the numerous instances of unexplained and uninitialed alterations to the dates on numerous signature lines, many of which were contained on petition sheets for which the appellant himself was the subscribing witness, required the invalidation of the designating petition (see Matter of McGuire v Gamache, 5 NY3d 444, 448 [2005]; Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 NY2d 954, 955 [1985]). While the appellant testified at the hearing, he did not provide an adequate explanation for the uninitialed changes, and we decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that his testimony was “unreliable, not tenable, and not worthy of belief’ (see Matter of Kraham v Rabbitt, 11 AD3d 808 [2004]; cf. Matter of Henry v Trotto, 54 AD3d 424 [2008]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Hall, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 689, 991 N.Y.S.2d 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-merrill-v-fritz-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack