People v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Board of Elections

286 A.D.2d 783, 730 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8874

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 783 (People 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

People v. Board of Elections, 286 A.D.2d 783, 730 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, inter alia, to modify certain canvassing procedures for the primary election, the Board of Elections of the City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), dated September 10, 2001, as granted those branches of the petition which were to modify the procedures for (1) canvassing affidavit ballots that were cast by voters who appeared at the wrong polling place, (2) determining whether a voter was eligible to cast an absentee ballot, and (3) judicial review of ballots that have been challenged by a candidate or his or her representative.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and those branches of the petition which were to modify the procedures for (1) canvassing affidavit ballots that were cast by voters who appeared at the wrong polling place, (2) determining whether a voter was eligible to cast an absentee ballot, and (3) judicial review of ballots that have been challenged by a candidate or his or her representative are denied.

The Supreme Court had no authority to modify the statutory procedures set forth in Election Law § 9-209 (2) (d) for the judicial review of ballots challenged by a candidate or his or her representative (see, Testa v Ravitz, 84 NY2d 893; Matter of Larsen v Canary, 107 AD2d 809, affd 65 NY2d 634). Nor did it have the authority to vary the statutory procedure set forth in Election Law § 8-302 (3) (e) (ii) and the regulations promulgated [784]*784by the Board of Elections governing the canvassing of affidavit ballots.

Although the Board of Elections has agreed to attach the voters’ applications to the absentee ballots, it objects to the Supreme Court’s usurpation of its prerogative to choose to do so. Since the Board of Elections had the initial authority to adopt this procedure, the Supreme Court exceeded its authority in this regard as well. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Florio and Crane, 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 article 16, inter alia, to modify certain canvassing procedures for the primary election, the Board of Elections of the City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), dated September 10, 2001, as granted those branches of the petition which were to modify the procedures for (1) canvassing affidavit ballots that were cast by voters who appeared at the wrong polling place, (2) determining whether a voter was eligible to cast an absentee ballot, and (3) judicial review of ballots that have been challenged by a candidate or his or her representative.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and those branches of the petition which were to modify the procedures for (1) canvassing affidavit ballots that were cast by voters who appeared at the wrong polling place, (2) determining whether a voter was eligible to cast an absentee ballot, and (3) judicial review of ballots that have been challenged by a candidate or his or her representative are denied.

The Supreme Court had no authority to modify the statutory procedures set forth in Election Law § 9-209 (2) (d) for the judicial review of ballots challenged by a candidate or his or her representative (see, Testa v Ravitz, 84 NY2d 893; Matter of Larsen v Canary, 107 AD2d 809, affd 65 NY2d 634). Nor did it have the authority to vary the statutory procedure set forth in Election Law § 8-302 (3) (e) (ii) and the regulations promulgated [784]*784by the Board of Elections governing the canvassing of affidavit ballots.

Although the Board of Elections has agreed to attach the voters’ applications to the absentee ballots, it objects to the Supreme Court’s usurpation of its prerogative to choose to do so. Since the Board of Elections had the initial authority to adopt this procedure, the Supreme Court exceeded its authority in this regard as well. Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Florio and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 783, 730 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack