Coviello v. Knapp

Decision Date24 January 2012
Citation937 N.Y.S.2d 305,91 A.D.3d 868,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00515
PartiesIn the Matter of Anthony COVIELLO, appellant, v. Frances KNAPP, et al., respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00515
91 A.D.3d 868
937 N.Y.S.2d 305

In the Matter of Anthony COVIELLO, appellant,
v.
Frances KNAPP, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 24, 2012.


Background: In a proceeding to preserve for judicial review certain ballots cast in a general election for the public office of Highway Superintendent, and to contest the casting and canvassing or the refusal to cast those ballots, petitioner appealed from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, Pagones, J., which denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the casting and canvassing of a certain absentee ballot designated as Exhibit 8, and denied that branch of the petition which was to direct the casting and canvassing of an alleged abandoned ballot.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:

(1) absentee ballot whose postmark could not be ascertained could not be cast and canvassed, and

(2) alleged “abandoned ballot” could not be cast and canvassed.

Affirmed as modified.

[937 N.Y.S.2d 305]

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

[91 A.D.3d 868] In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16, inter alia, to preserve for judicial review certain ballots cast in a general election for the public office of Highway Superintendent of the Town of Beekman, and to contest the casting and canvassing or the refusal to cast those ballots, the petitioner Anthony Coviello appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 19, 2011, as denied that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the casting and canvassing of a certain absentee ballot designated as Exhibit 8, and denied that branch of the petition which was to direct the casting and canvassing of an alleged abandoned ballot designated as Exhibit 1.

ORDERED that the final order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was to prohibit the casting and canvassing of the absentee ballot designated as Exhibit 8, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition and directing the Dutchess County Board of Elections not to cast and canvass the absentee ballot designated as Exhibit 8; as so modified, the final order is affirmed

[937 N.Y.S.2d 306]

insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[1] [91 A.D.3d 869] The Supreme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tenney v. Oswego Cnty. Bd. of Elections
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 29, 2021
    ...cure affirmation cannot be determined on its face or from other records of the Board, then it is invalid ( Coviello v. Knapp , 91 A.D.3d 868, 869, 937 N.Y.S.2d 305 [2d Dept. 2012] ). Accordingly, here, untimely cure affirmations may not be considered in determining the underlying ballot's v......
  • Keeley v. Ayala
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 3, 2018
    ...for delivery at a United States post office on a specific date. See, e.g., In re Coviello v. Knapp , 91 App. Div. 3d 868, 869, 937 N.Y.S.2d 305 (2012) (in state requiring absentee ballots to be cast no later than day before election, ballot lacking ascertainable postmark date and received s......
  • Butler v. Bd. of Trustees New York City Fire Dep't Pension Fund
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 24, 2012
    ...2010, denying the petitioner's motion to restore the proceeding to active status, and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument,[91 A.D.3d 868] vacating the determination in the order dated July 7, 2010, denying the petitioner's motion, and thereupon granting the petitioner's motio......
  • Kelley v. Lynaugh
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2013
    ...Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board of Elections) in a timely fashion ( seeElection Law §§ 11–302, 9–209; cf. Coviello v. Knapp, 91 A.D.3d 868, 869, 937 N.Y.S.2d 305). Consequently, the court should have granted that branch of the petition which was to direct the casting and canvassin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT