Schwartz v. MacKay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schwartz v. MacKay

286 A.D.2d 462, 730 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 462 (Schwartz v. MacKay) 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

Schwartz v. MacKay, 286 A.D.2d 462, 730 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate so much of a [463]*463petition as designated Bronwyn Black-Kelly as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 11, 2001, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Town Council, Town of Huntington, the petitioner appeals from an order and final order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated August 8, 2001, which granted the cross motion of the respondent Bronwyn Black-Kelly to dismiss the proceeding for failure to name and serve a necessary party, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and final order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion is denied, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Suffolk County Board of Elections to remove the name of Bronwyn Black-Kelly from the appropriate ballot.

The challenged petition designated, among other candidates, Bronwyn Black-Kelly and Paul J. Tonna as candidates in a primary election for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidates for the public offices of Member of the Town Council, Town of Huntington, and Member of the Suffolk County Legislature for the 17th Legislative District, respectively. The petitioner brought this proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate so much of the petition as designated Black-Kelly as a candidate. There was no requirement that the petitioner join Tonna as a necessary party, as the designating petition is unique to each candidate (see, Matter of Buchanan v Espada, 88 NY2d 973). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion to dismiss. Moreover, the record reveals that the petitions were permeated with fraud (see, Matter of Haas v Costigan, 14 AD2d 809). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, H. Miller, Smith and Townes, 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 so much of a [463]*463petition as designated Bronwyn Black-Kelly as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 11, 2001, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Town Council, Town of Huntington, the petitioner appeals from an order and final order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Catterson, J.), dated August 8, 2001, which granted the cross motion of the respondent Bronwyn Black-Kelly to dismiss the proceeding for failure to name and serve a necessary party, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and final order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the cross motion is denied, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Suffolk County Board of Elections to remove the name of Bronwyn Black-Kelly from the appropriate ballot.

The challenged petition designated, among other candidates, Bronwyn Black-Kelly and Paul J. Tonna as candidates in a primary election for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidates for the public offices of Member of the Town Council, Town of Huntington, and Member of the Suffolk County Legislature for the 17th Legislative District, respectively. The petitioner brought this proceeding, inter alia, to invalidate so much of the petition as designated Black-Kelly as a candidate. There was no requirement that the petitioner join Tonna as a necessary party, as the designating petition is unique to each candidate (see, Matter of Buchanan v Espada, 88 NY2d 973). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion to dismiss. Moreover, the record reveals that the petitions were permeated with fraud (see, Matter of Haas v Costigan, 14 AD2d 809). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, H. Miller, Smith and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 462, 730 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-mackay-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack