In the Matter of Joan Pagones v. Irizarry

Decision Date16 August 2011
PartiesIn the Matter of Joan PAGONES, appellant,v.Jerry IRIZARRY, et al., respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition for an opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate pursuant to Election Law § 6–164 in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2011, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Town Supervisor of the Town of Fishkill, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated August 11, 2011, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Pursuant to Election Law § 6–166(2), a petition requesting an opportunity to ballot by providing for a write-in candidate at a primary election shall include the names and addresses of at least three persons appointed as a committee to receive notices. This committee is an “essential element” of an opportunity to ballot and the “complete absence” of any such committee is a “fatal defect” ( Matter of Werner v. Castiglione, 286 A.D.2d 553, 554, 729 N.Y.S.2d 227).

Here, the petitioner contends that the petition for an opportunity to ballot should be invalidated because it lists an incorrect address for one of the three persons appointed to the Committee to Receive Notices. This contention is without merit. The record reveals that the committee member had moved from one residence within the Town of Fishkill to another residence within the Town three days before the deadline to file the petitions, and had notified the Dutchess County Board of Elections of this change of address. Under these circumstances, there was no showing of an intent to mislead or confuse signatories as to the committee member's identity, and no showing that any erroneously listed address would or did tend to mislead or confuse anyone ( see Matter of Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339; Matter of Maloney v. Ulster County Bd. of Elections, 21 A.D.3d 692, 693, 800 N.Y.S.2d 249; Matter of Petersen v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 580; Matter of Harfmann v. Sachs, 138 A.D.2d 550, 526 N.Y.S.2d 41; compare Matter of Eisenberg v. Strasser, 100 N.Y.2d 590,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • In the Matter of Vilair Fonvil v. Denexandre
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 16, 2011
    ...A.D.3d 640928 N.Y.S.2d 4672011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06266In the Matter of Vilair FONVIL, appellant,v.Denet ALEXANDRE, respondent-respondent, et al., respondents.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.Aug. 16, [87 A.D.3d 640] In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102......
  • In the Matter of Anthony P. Nunziato v. Messano
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 16, 2011
    ...the petition to invalidate, the respondent candidates offered no evidence to contradict the petitioners' proof that the petition to [87 A.D.3d 648] invalidate was served in a manner authorized by the order to show cause. With respect to the issue of whether service was completed within the ......
  • Cassar v. Larsen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 15, 2013
    ...to receive notices ( see Matter of Cass v. Krakower, 13 N.Y.3d 118, 885 N.Y.S.2d 448, 914 N.E.2d 140;Matter of Pagones v. Irizarry, 87 A.D.3d 648, 928 N.Y.S.2d 467). This committee is an “essential element” of an opportunity to ballot and, under the circumstances herein, the failure to desi......
  • Shahzad v. Montesano
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 15, 2012
    ...([98 A.D.3d 626]Matter of Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339;see Matter of Pagones v. Irizarry,87 A.D.3d 648, 649, 928 N.Y.S.2d 467;Matter of Maloney v. Ulster County Bd. of Elections, 21 A.D.3d 692, 693, 800 N.Y.S.2d 249). Here, there was no evidence i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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