Abinanti v. Duffy

• Decision Date: 20 August 2014
• Citation: 120 A.D.3d 668,991 N.Y.S.2d 319,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05863
• Parties: In the Matter of Thomas J. ABINANTI, appellant, v. Mike DUFFY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

120 A.D.3d 668
991 N.Y.S.2d 319
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05863

In the Matter of Thomas J. ABINANTI, appellant,
v.
Mike DUFFY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondents.

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

Aug. 20, 2014.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Mike Duffy as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2014, for the nomination of

[991 N.Y.S.2d 320]

the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 92nd Assembly District, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), dated August 1, 2014, as, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner asserts that the designating petition is invalid on the ground that it does not include the full name of the candidate, Michael K. Duffy. However, under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that the use of the name “Mike Duffy” was intended to mislead or confuse potential signatories, or did, in fact, mislead or tend to lead to misidentification or confusion on the part of potential signatories as to the candidate's identity ( see Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition and dismissed the proceeding ( see Matter of Mannarino v. Goodbee, 109 A.D.3d 683, 685, 970 N.Y.S.2d 835; Matter of Eisenberg v. Strasser, 307 A.D.2d 1053, 1054, 763 N.Y.S.2d 782, affd.100 N.Y.2d 590, 769 N.Y.S.2d 150, 801 N.E.2d 370; Matter of Petersen v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 580).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contention, which was raised as an alternative ground for affirmance ( see Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241; Matter of MacKay v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 428, 430, 863 N.Y.S.2d 85).

SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.