Lozano v. Scaringe
| Decision Date | 20 August 1998 |
| Citation | 677 N.Y.S.2d 404,253 A.D.2d 569 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7538 In the Matter of James LOZANO, Appellant, v. George P. SCARINGE et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Albany, et al., Respondents. (And Three Other Related Proceedings.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feeney, Centi & Mackey (L. Michael Mackey of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Thomas J. Spargo, East Berne, for Lawrence D. Rosenbaum and another, respondents.
Patricia L. Murray, New York State Board of Elections, Albany, for State Board of Elections, respondent.
Before MERCURE, J.P., WHITE, YESAWICH, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.
Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered August 12, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' applications, in four proceedings pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, for orders invalidating the designating petitions naming respondents Kenneth Champagne, James Corbett, Lawrence Rosenbaum, Thomas Hoey, David T. Pillittere, Theresa C. Pillittere, Wanda Chenot and Robert Chenot as the Independence Party candidates for the party position of Delegate to the Third Judicial District Convention in the September 15, 1998 primary election.
Petitioners in these four proceedings, which were consolidated by order of the Supreme Court, filed general objections and specifications to the designating petitions of the aforementioned eight Independence Party candidates on the ground that the party position sought by each was not sufficiently specified in their respective designating petitions. Specifically, petitioners take issue with the following description of the position of Delegate as set forth in each of the four designating petitions: "Delegate 3rd Judicial District 102 A.D.", "Delegate 3rd Judicial District 104 A.D.", "Delegate 3rd Judicial District 106 A.D." and "Delegate 3rd Judicial District 107 A.D.". Petitioners argue that this description of the office would be overly confusing to the average voter due to the failure to include the word "convention" so that the description would read, for example, "Delegate to the 3rd Judicial District Convention from the 102nd Assembly District". In each instance, the applicable boards of elections 1 rejected petitioners' objections and accepted the designating petitions. Petitioners then commenced the instant proceedings in Supreme Court contending that the petitions are fatally defective and seeking orders invalidating them. Supreme Court dismissed petitioners' applications and these appeals ensued.
This court has recently held that the name of the office set forth in a candidate's designating petition may be described in a variety of ways provided that the description thereof is specific enough " ' * * * to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections' " (Matter of Dipple v. Devine, 218 A.D.2d 918, 918-919, 630...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maurer v. Monescalchi
...Law § 6-120(3) and that Supreme Court properly found petitioners' designating petition to be invalid (cf., Matter of Lozano v. Scaringe, 253 A.D.2d 569, 677 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 806, 678 N.Y.S.2d 592, 700 N.E.2d 1228). As this failure constitutes a fatal defect rather than a m......
-
Saini v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections
...251 (3d Dep't) lv. den . 93 N.Y.2d 816, 697 N.Y.S.2d 563, 719 N.E.2d 924 (1999) ; Lozano v. Scaringe , 253 A.D.2d 569, 677 N.Y.S.2d 404 (3d Dep't) 92 N.Y.2d 806, 678 N.Y.S.2d 592, 700 N.E.2d 1228 (1998) ; Tobin v. May , 72 A.D.2d 648, 421 N.Y.S.2d 441 (3d Dep't 1979). However, these cases d......