Sullivan v. New York City Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. New York City Board of Elections

224 A.D.2d 565, 637 N.Y.S.2d 804, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 565 (Sullivan v. New York City 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

Sullivan v. New York City Board of Elections, 224 A.D.2d 565, 637 N.Y.S.2d 804, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 to validate petitions designating James C. Sullivan, Mitchell S. Marcus, and William Sampol as candidates in a primary election to be held on March 7, 1996, for the Republican Party party positions of delegates and Roger M. Adelmann, Joseph M. Dicanio, and Brian O’Connell as alternate delegates, respectively, for the 9th Congressional District to the 1996 Republican National Convention, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The power of boards of elections to determine the validity of a nominating petition " 'extends only to ministerial examination’ ” (Schwartz v Heffernan, 304 NY 474, 480). We find that the act of the New York City Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) in determining whether the Commissioners of Deeds were qualified to act as subscribing witnesses, under the facts of this case, was a ministerial act in that it left nothing to the exercise of judgment or discretion (see generally, Wicksel v Cohen, 262 NY 446, 449; Matter of Millet v Meisser, 17 NY2d 941, affg 26 AD2d 577). Therefore, the Board’s action in invalidating the signatures obtained by the unqualified subscribing witnesses was proper.

Additionally, we find that the objectors substantially complied with the Board’s rules regarding the filing of specifications of objections to designating petitions.

We find the appellants’ remaining arguments to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci, Hart and Krausman, 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 to validate petitions designating James C. Sullivan, Mitchell S. Marcus, and William Sampol as candidates in a primary election to be held on March 7, 1996, for the Republican Party party positions of delegates and Roger M. Adelmann, Joseph M. Dicanio, and Brian O’Connell as alternate delegates, respectively, for the 9th Congressional District to the 1996 Republican National Convention, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, after a hearing, denied the application and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The power of boards of elections to determine the validity of a nominating petition " 'extends only to ministerial examination’ ” (Schwartz v Heffernan, 304 NY 474, 480). We find that the act of the New York City Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) in determining whether the Commissioners of Deeds were qualified to act as subscribing witnesses, under the facts of this case, was a ministerial act in that it left nothing to the exercise of judgment or discretion (see generally, Wicksel v Cohen, 262 NY 446, 449; Matter of Millet v Meisser, 17 NY2d 941, affg 26 AD2d 577). Therefore, the Board’s action in invalidating the signatures obtained by the unqualified subscribing witnesses was proper.

Additionally, we find that the objectors substantially complied with the Board’s rules regarding the filing of specifications of objections to designating petitions.

We find the appellants’ remaining arguments to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 565, 637 N.Y.S.2d 804, 638 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack