Lamarca v. Quirk

• Decision Date: 09 October 2013
• Parties: In the Matter of Richard LaMARCA, respondent-appellant, v. John B. QUIRK III, appellant-respondent, et al., respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

110 A.D.3d 808
973 N.Y.S.2d 254
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06573

In the Matter of Richard LaMARCA, respondent-appellant,
v.
John B. QUIRK III, appellant-respondent, et al., respondent.

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

Oct. 9, 2013.

[973 N.Y.S.2d 255]

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate an independent nominating petition nominating John B. Quirk III as a candidate of the Libertarian Party for the public office of Nassau County Legislator, 18th Legislative District, in a general election to be held on November 5, 2013, John B. Quirk III appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated September 26, 2013, which, after a hearing, granted the petition and invalidated his independent nominating petition, and the petitioner cross-appeals from the same final order.

ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the petitioner is not aggrieved by the final order ( seeCPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed on the appeal by John B. Quirk III, without costs or disbursements.

John B. Quirk III filed an independent nominating petition with the Nassau County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board of Elections) containing 1,672 signatures, seeking to become the candidate of the Libertarian Party for the Public Office of Nassau County Legislator, 18th Legislative District. Richard LaMarca filed objections and specifications of objections with the Board of Elections, challenging numerous signatures on a variety of grounds. LaMarca thereafter commenced this proceeding to invalidate the independent nominating petition. LaMarca's petition sought to invalidate numerous signatures on several grounds and alleged, among other things, that the independent nominating petition was “potentially fraudulent,” in that it contained signatures procured by fraud, forgery, deceit, and treachery. The Supreme Court held the proceeding in abeyance pending the completion of proceedings before the Board of Elections.

The two-member Board of Elections invalidated 440 signatures, “split” on 166 signatures (i.e., one Commissioner voted to invalidate the signatures while the other Commissioner voted not to invalidate the signatures, effectively permitting the signatures to remain valid), and did not rule on approximately 100 signatures that were the subject of allegations of possible forgery. Since 1,232 signatures were deemed by the Board of Elections to be valid, the Board of Elections concluded that the independent nominating petition was sufficient.

Upon the resumption of the instant proceeding, a special referee conducted a line-by-line examination of the Board of Elections' “splits,” and invalidated an additional 83 signatures, but concluded that, since 1,149 valid signatures remained, the independent nominating petition still contained a sufficient number of valid and qualifying...