Ray v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ray v. Board of Elections

275 A.D.2d 428, 713 N.Y.S.2d 126, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8875

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 23, 2000·Published

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-106 to set aside the results of a general election held on November 2, 1999, for the public office of Dutchess County Legislator for the 18th Legislative District, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 26, 2000, which, inter alia, in effect, denied the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal must be dismissed as academic (see, Matter of Hanington v Coveney, 62 NY2d 640). In any event, we reject the petitioner’s contentions that the results of the original canvas should be considered the final results of the election, or that the Supreme Court should have directed a new election. The Supreme Court was empowered to order a recanvass (see, Election Law § 16-106 [4]), and at the recanvass, the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to review the ballots, challenge [429] them for defects, and raise any objections to the tabulation of the ballots (see, Matter of Cregg v Fisselbrand, 22 AD2d 342). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 § 16-106 to set aside the results of a general election held on November 2, 1999, for the public office of Dutchess County Legislator for the 18th Legislative District, the appeal is from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 26, 2000, which, inter alia, in effect, denied the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal must be dismissed as academic (see, Matter of Hanington v Coveney, 62 NY2d 640). In any event, we reject the petitioner’s contentions that the results of the original canvas should be considered the final results of the election, or that the Supreme Court should have directed a new election. The Supreme Court was empowered to order a recanvass (see, Election Law § 16-106 [4]), and at the recanvass, the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to review the ballots, challenge [429] them for defects, and raise any objections to the tabulation of the ballots (see, Matter of Cregg v Fisselbrand, 22 AD2d 342). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Ray v. Board of Elections, 275 A.D.2d 428, 713 N.Y.S.2d 126, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 428 (Ray v. Board of Elections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related