Niebauer v. Board of Elections

76 A.D.2d 660, 905 N.Y.S.2d 776

This text of 76 A.D.2d 660 (Niebauer v. 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
Niebauer v. Board of Elections, 76 A.D.2d 660, 905 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate petitions (a) designating Michael N. Niebauer and Pamela J. Rinando as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2010, for the Independence Party positions of Male Member and Female Member, respectively, of the Independence Party State Committee from the 27th Assembly District, and Delegates to the Eleventh Judicial District Convention from the 27th Assembly District, (b) designating Marsela A. Meraku as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2010, for the Independence Party positions of Female Member of the Independence Party State Committee from the 36th Assembly District, and Delegate to the Eleventh Judicial District Convention from the 36th Assembly District, and (c) designating Colin M. Cheung and Grace J. Lim as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2010, for Independence Party positions of Male Member and Female Member, respectively, of the Independence Party State Committee from the 24th Assembly District, and Delegates to the Eleventh Judicial District Convention from the 24th Assembly District, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated August 9, 2010, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition.

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

Section 16-116 of the Election Law requires that a special proceeding brought under article 16 of the Election Law shall be “heard upon a verified petition” (see Matter of Goodman v Hayduk, 45 NY2d 804, 806 [1978]). The requirement is jurisdictional in nature and cannot be cured by amendment (id.; see Matter of Frisa v McCarthy, 298 AD2d 457, 458 [2002]; Matter of Frisa v O’Grady, 297 AD2d 394, 395 [2002]). CPLR 3021 sets forth the form of verification. Since the petition was not verified as mandated by Election Law § 16-116, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see Matter of Alper v [661]*661Hayduk, 71 AD2d 935 [1979]; but see Matter of Rose v Smith, 220 AD2d 922 [1995]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

MATTER OF GOODMAN v. Hayduk
381 N.E.2d 165 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Alper v. Hayduk
71 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Rose v. Smith
220 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Frisa v. O'Grady
297 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Frisa v. McCarthy
298 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 A.D.2d 660, 905 N.Y.S.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niebauer-v-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-2010.