Dao Yin v. Cuomo
| Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 705013/20,2020–03910 |
| Parties | In the Matter of DAO YIN, et al., Appellants, v. Andrew M. CUOMO, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
183 A.D.3d 926
125 N.Y.S.3d 123
In the Matter of DAO YIN, et al., Appellants,
v.
Andrew M. CUOMO, etc., et al., Respondents.
2020–03910
Index No. 705013/20
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—May 26, 2020
May 27, 2020
Aaron Foldenauer, New York, NY, for appellants.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondent Andrew M. Cuomo.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Devin Slack, Stephen Kitzinger, and Elina Druker of counsel), for respondent Board of Elections in the City of New York.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. HECTOR D. LASALLE FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that so much of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.23 (9 NYCRR 8.202.23) as canceled the June 23, 2020, special election for the office of Queens Borough President is invalid, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J.), entered May 18, 2020. The order and judgment denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the proceeding is converted into an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the order to show cause is deemed to be the summons, the amended petition is deemed to be the complaint and a motion for summary judgment on the complaint and declaring that so much of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.23 (9 NYCRR 8.202.23) as canceled the June 23, 2020, special election for the office of Queens Borough President is invalid, and the opposition papers of the respondent Andrew M. Cuomo are deemed to be a cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him and declaring that so much of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.23 (9 NYCRR 8.202.23) as canceled the June 23, 2020, special election for the office of Queens Borough President is valid (see CPLR 103[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, dismissing the declaratory judgment cause of action, and adding thereto a provision declaring that so much of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.23 (9...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthew P. v. Neifeld
...and petition — to be those required by CPLR § 304, i.e., the summons and complaint, respectively. See, Matter of Dao Yin v. Cuomo , 183 A.D.3d 926, 927, 125 N.Y.S.3d 123 (2d Dept. 2020) ; Matter of Williams v. Town of Carmel , 175 A.D.3d 550, 551, 106 N.Y.S.3d 333 (2d Dept. 2019) ; Matter o......
-
Matthew P. v. Neifeld
... ... proceeding into an action, and to deem the pleadings filed - ... the order to show / notice of petition and petition - to be ... those required by CPLR §304, i.e, the summons and ... complaint, respectively. See, Matter of Dao Yin v ... Cuomo , 183 A.D.3d 926, 927 (2d Dept. 2020); Matter ... of Williams v. Town of Carmel , 175 A.D.3d 550, 551 (2d ... Dept. 2019); Matter of Houston v. Board of Managers , ... 162 A.D.3d 1026 (2d Dept. 2018); Matter of State of New ... York (Essex Prop. Mgt., LLC) , 152 A.D.3d 1169, 1171 (4th ... ...
-
Ellington v. Kings Cnty. Democratic Cnty. Comm.
...v. State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. , 102 A.D.3d 72, 76-77, 953 N.Y.S.2d 368 [3d Dept. 2012] ; cf. Dao Yin v. Cuomo , 183 A.D.3d 926, 928, 125 N.Y.S.3d 123 [2d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Quinn v. Cuomo , 183 A.D.3d 928, 930-931, 125 N.Y.S.3d 120 [2d Dept. 2020] ). The court now turns to......
-
Lopez-Motherway v. City of Long Beach
...that the New York Executive Law "allows [the governor] to exercise extraordinary executive powers"); Dao Yin v. Cuomo, 183 A.D.3d 926, 928, 125 N.Y.S.3d 123, 125 (2d Dep't 2020) (same). But while many of the executive orders have been highly litigated, this particular one has not. The parti......