Corrigan v. Suffolk Cnty. Bd. of Elections

• Docket Number: Index No. 611190/2022
• Decision Date: 28 July 2022
• Citation: 175 N.Y.S.3d 846
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Caitlin Brooke Marie CORRIGAN, a Candidate aggrieved, Petitioner, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Anita Katz, Betty Manzella, John Does 1-99, Jane Does 1-99, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

175 N.Y.S.3d 846

In the Matter of the Application of Caitlin Brooke Marie CORRIGAN, a Candidate aggrieved, Petitioner,

v.SUFFOLK COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Anita Katz, Betty Manzella, John Does 1-99, Jane Does 1-99, Respondents.

Index No. 611190/2022

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.

Decided on July 28, 2022

Ms. Caitlin Brooke Marie Corrigan, Self-Represented Petitioner

Alyssa L. Garone, Assistant County Attorney, Attorney for Respondents, H. Lee Dennison Building, 100 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788

James Hudson, J.

It is,

ORDERED that the motion of Petitioner (seq. 001) is denied.

ORDERED that the cross-motion (Seq. 002) of the Respondents for dismissal of the Petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7) is granted under the circumstances presented. It is further

ORDERED that the Petition is Dismissed.

The case at bar is a Petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and Election Law § 16-102 (2). Petitioner, seeking to be a candidate for the Republican party in the 1st Congressional District, filed a Certificate of Designation as well as Designating Petitions for the Republican primary. She was disqualified by the Respondents. Unless specified otherwise, all calendar dates refer to 2022.

Petitioner has filed the instant application which asserts that the Respondents’ disqualification was, among other things, arbitrary and capricious and in violation of lawful procedure and in denial of her due process rights under the NYS Constitution. Further, the Petitioner asks for an order directing her restoration to the ballot in time for the August 23, 2022 Republican primary. The Court must note that this Article 78 proceeding was commenced in the following sequence: the original Petition relating to the Certificate of Designation was filed on June 14 and served on June 21. The Amended Article 78 proceeding which challenged the disqualification of Ms. Corrigan's Designating Petition was filed on July 5.

In lieu of answering the Petition, Respondents have moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), granting dismissal of the Petition in its entirety (ELN § 16-102 (2) ).

The thrust of the Respondents’ motion is one of timeliness ( CPLR 3211 [a] [5] ). Additionally, Respondents contend that the Petition lacks merit even if the Court disregards the failure of Ms. Corrigan to meet applicable time constraints ( CPLR 3211 [a] [7] ).

In the oft cited case of Kamchi v. Weissman , 125 A.D.3d 142, 150, 1 N.Y.S.3d169, 176 (2d Dept. 2014), the Court stated

"In assessing the adequacy of a complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and afford the plaintiff ‘the benefit of every possible favorable inference’ " ( Id. at 150, 1 N.Y.S.3d 169 citing J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co. , 21 N.Y.3d 324, 334, 970 N.Y.S.2d 733, 992 N.E.2d 1076, quoting AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co. , 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471 ; see Sacher v. Beacon Assoc. Mgt. Corp. , 114 A.D.3d 655, 656, 980 N.Y.S.2d 121[2d Dept. 2014] ; Young v. Brown , 113 A.D.3d 761, 761, 978 N.Y.S.2d 867 [2d Dept. 2014] ).

It is against this standard of review that the sufficiency of the Petition must be measured.

Respondents’ counsel notes that in light of the Court of Appeals decision in Harkenrider v. Hochul , 38 N.Y.3d 494, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2022], the lower Court (Supreme, Steuben Cty, McAllister J.) was obliged to redraw Congressional and State Senate Maps. Justice McAllister issued an order on May 11, 2022 setting a calendar for the August 23, 2022 primary election and determining the methods of ballot access. The two methods of securing a place on the ballot were filing a Certificate of Designation or a Designating Petition (See Petitioner's Exhibit "E").

Ms. Corrigan filed a Certificate of Designation on May 31, 2022 (Respondents’ administrative return exhibit A-1). An examination of this one-page document shows that in the section providing for the political party of the candidate, Petitioner indicated "N/A".

The Board notified Petitioner by letter dated June 8, 2022 that the Certificate of Designation she filed was determined to be invalid on the grounds that "the Certificate did not state the Party and/or stated a party that does not exist as required by the designating form and therefore the form is insufficient" (Respondents administrative return exhibit A-4).

Additionally, Petitioner filed a Designating Petition with the Board of Elections. The Respondents rejected this document (more accurately documents) as well, based on it being filed after the June 10, 2022 deadline imposed by Justice McAllister. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Corrigan's petition was postmarked on June 10. It was not received, however, until June 13.

Moreover, the Respondents contend that this Article 78 proceeding is untimely.

In opposing the Respondents’ motion, the Petitioner's answering papers, at 86 pages, are far in excess of the 7,000-word maximum allowed under 22 NYCRR Sec. 202.8-b. The Respondents requested the Court reject Ms. Corrigan's papers. Although such an action was within the Court's prerogative pursuant to the rule in Macias v. City of Yonkers, 65 A.D.3d 1298, 885 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2d Dept. 2009] (see 215 Siegel's Prac. Rev. 3), since the Petitioner is self-represented and not an attorney, the interests of justice require that the technical defects in her Court filings be overlooked in order to ascertain if there is merit to the arguments contained therein.

Accordingly, we have afforded her moving papers every favorable inference and give a broad and liberal interpretation to her arguments ( Moore v. County of Rensselaer , 156 A.D.2d 784, 549 N.Y.S.2d 828 [3d Dept. 1989] ). Cognizant of our duty to attempt the resolution of the dispute on the merits (see Smithtown General Hospital v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 111 A.D.2d 382, 489 N.Y.S.2d 590 [2d Dept. 1985] ), we have disregarded the technical defects in Ms. Corrigan's motion papers to ascertain if they contain any legal argument which has a bearing on the issues presented before the Court.

One defective aspect of the Petitioner's answering papers cannot be overlooked. The Court must admonish the Petitioner for certain intemperate language used in her papers wherein she accuses Ms. Garone of incompetence and/or deliberately misleading the Court. Ms. Corrigan is not an attorney. By her own statements, however, she has attended prestigious institutions of higher learning and holds a Master's Degree in Divinity. Although she is not to be held to the standards of a lawyer under the Rules of Professional Conduct, Ms. Corrigan must still conduct herself in a professional manner. As such, the Court found her personal remarks directed at Ms. Garoneto be insulting in addition to being legally incorrect (See Capetola v. Capetola , 96 A.D.3d 612, 613, 947 N.Y.S.2d 94, 95 [1st Dept. 2012] ). An effective advocate, regardless of whether they hold a juris doctor's degree, does not need to resort to such language. Indeed, it is the obligation of the Judge to insure indecorous behavior does not occur (see 22 NYCRR Sec. 100.3 (B) (2) ). Petitioner also derides legal writing as "the most elitist, pompous, and complex writing I have ever experienced in my life" (Letter to the Court dated July 20, 2022). We must inform the Petitioner that over the centuries unto the present day, our society owes a great debt to those luminaries of the bench and bar who, in employing the legal writing she condemns, have proven themselves to be true guardians of liberty. We commend Petitioner to study the works of the great jurists, thus realizing this profound knowledge witnessed by the maxim "multa ignoramus quÆ nobis non laterent si veterum lectio nuit familiaris (10 Coke 73)¹ .

The gravamen of Ms. Corrigan's argument is that she was a properly designated candidate on May 18, 2022 so her removal from the ballot is an illegal act (affidavit of Ms. Corrigan p. 6). "There is no law that allows the Suffolk County Board of Elections to invalidate my candidacy after the New York State Board of Elections already determined my petition was valid on May 18, 2022 and placed me on the Ballot" (aff of Corrigan p. 8 para "d"). Part of her authority for making this statement is reliance on a purported communication she had with Justice McAllister's Law Clerk. Ms. Corrigan recorded this conversation and provided a copy to the Court (Petitioner's Exhibit 3).

Petitioner also indicates that she timely commenced this action on June 14, 2022 (Affidavit in Opposition p. 6).

Petitioner's contention is that her oversight in neglecting to list her party as Republican on the Certificate of Designation was cured by her Amended Certificate of Designation, dated June 14, 2022, and letter to the Board dated June 13, 2022 (Respondents’ administrative return exhibit A-5-10), and that this "cure" should be accepted "as a nunc pro tunc correction." (petitioner's opposition, p. 19.). Additionally, Petitioner appears to argue that the omission should have been considered de minimus by the Respondents in light of other documentation she submitted which clearly indicated her party affiliation. Moreover, it is asserted that since Ms. Corrigan's candidacy had been approved by the State Board of Elections prior to Harkenrider ’s mandate, her filings for the First Congressional District Republican primary should be considered pro forma.

Ms. Corrigan advances her arguments with commendable vigor and great skill. Ultimately, however, they prove to be chimerical.

The Court must initially address the sufficiency of the proof submitted by the movants.

It is well settled law that when administrative agencies make decisions that are subject to judicial review, the decision itself must be "... sufficiently definite to inform the court and the parties as to the findings made and the basis of the findings" ( Sidor v. New York State...