Baldeo v. Choudhury

• Decision Date: 12 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2022–03346,Index No. 708601/22
• Citation: 205 A.D.3d 846,166 N.Y.S.3d 541 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of Albert BALDEO, appellant, v. Mizanur R. CHOUDHURY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

205 A.D.3d 846
166 N.Y.S.3d 541 (Mem)

In the Matter of Albert BALDEO, appellant,
v.
Mizanur R. CHOUDHURY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondent.

2022–03346
Index No. 708601/22

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

Argued—May 11, 2022
May 12, 2022

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Mizanur R. Choudhury as a candidate in a primary election to be held on June 28, 2022, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 24th Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Tracy Catapano–Fox, J.), entered May 5, 2022. The final order, upon the denial of the petitioner's application for an adjournment, dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that the Supreme Court should have granted his application for a one-week adjournment to secure the attendance of witnesses at the hearing on his petition, inter alia, to invalidate a certain designating petition. The determination of that application was a matter resting within the court's sound discretion (see

166 N.Y.S.3d 542

Selene Fin., L.P. v. Firshing, 203 A.D.3d 861, 863, 160 N.Y.S.3d 882 ; Vassiliou–Sideris v. Nautilus, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 1756, 129 N.Y.S.3d 796 ; Matter of Braunfotel v. Feiden, 172 A.D.3d 1451, 1451, 102 N.Y.S.3d 90 ; Matter of Fonvil v. Alexandre, 87 A.D.3d 640, 640, 928 N.Y.S.2d 467 ). Considering, among other things, the petitioner's lack of due diligence in securing the attendance of the witnesses (see Matter of Steven B., 6 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 817 N.Y.S.2d 599, 850 N.E.2d 646 ; Park Lane N. Owners, Inc. v. Gengo, 151 A.D.3d 874, 876, 58 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; Matter of Fonvil v. Alexandre, 87 A.D.3d at 640, 928 N.Y.S.2d 467 ), and that "proceedings pursuant to the Election Law require immediate action because they are subject to severe time constraints" ( Matter of Fonvil v. Alexandre, 87 A.D.3d at 640, 928 N.Y.S.2d 467...