Matter of Mitchell v. NYC Bd. of Elections

Opinion

Matter of Mitchell v NYC Bd. of Elections

2026 NY Slip Op 05257

September 15, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Rene M. Mitchell, appellant,

v

NYC Board of Elections, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on September 15, 2026

2026-06104, (Index No. 700003/26)

Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.

Helen Voutsinas

Donna-Marie E. Golia

James P. McCormack, JJ.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

On a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate an independent nominating petition nominating Rene M. Mitchell as a candidate of an independent body for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 45th Assembly District in a general election to be held on November 3, 2026, Rene M. Mitchell appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated June 30, 2026. The final order denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the independent nominating petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

On May 26, 2026, the petitioner, Rene M. Mitchell, filed with the Board of Elections in the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) an independent nominating petition nominating herself as a candidate of an unspecified independent body for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 45th Assembly District in a general election to be held on November 3, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Board sent Mitchell a notice informing her, among other things, that the filings omitted certain information, including the name of the independent body, and that she had three days to cure. On May 29, 2026, Mitchell filed with the Board an amended cover sheet and certificate of acceptance, on which she wrote the word "Independent" in the space designated for the name of the independent body making the nomination. The Board determined that the independent nominating petition was invalid.

Mitchell then commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate the independent nominating petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the independent nominating petition, on the ground, among others, that the independent nominating petition failed to strictly comply with Election Law § 6-140(1)(a) by omitting the name of the independent body making the nomination. Mitchell appeals.

Election Law § 6-140(1)(a) provides that each sheet of an independent nominating petition "shall contain," inter alia, the name of the independent body making the nomination. "While substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content" (Matter of McCrae v Forte, 208 AD3d 1290, 1292 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Davin v Felberman, 205 AD3d 855, 856). "When such prescribed content is mandated by a statute that is clear and unambiguous on its face . . . the failure to conform with its requirements constitutes a fundamental flaw in the petition" (Matter of Williams v Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 65 AD3d 653, 654 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Here, the record demonstrates that Mitchell failed to include the name of the independent body making the nomination on the independent nominating petition and, thus, failed to strictly comply with Election Law § 6-140(1)(a) as to a matter of prescribed content. Contrary to Mitchell's contention on appeal, this failure was not a "de minimis scrivener's error" and was fatal to the independent nominating petition (see Matter of Davin v Felberman, 205 AD3d at 856; Matter of McCormack v Jablonski, 132 AD3d 921, 923; see also Matter of Bragman v Larsen, 153 AD3d 813, 815-816).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the independent nominating petition and dismissed the proceeding.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the Board's remaining contention.

IANNACCI, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court