Matter of Boudreau v. Catanise

• Decision Date: 01 February 2002
• Docket Number: 4,02-00018
• Parties: MATTER OF EDWARD M. BOUDREAU,, v ELAINE CATANISE, JOAN MOONEY, AL TANEY, ONE OF THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF SENECA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FROM THE TOWN OF WATERLOO,AL., RESPONDENTS. CAE 02-00018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Decided on
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

MATTER OF EDWARD M. BOUDREAU, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT v ELAINE CATANISE, JOAN MOONEY, AL TANEY, ONE OF THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF SENECA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FROM THE TOWN OF WATERLOO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

CAE 02-00018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Decided on February 1, 2002

HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (PETER H. ABDELLA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS ELAINE CATANISE AND JOAN MOONEY.

EDWARD C. GANGAROSA, ESQ., ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AL TANEY.

BOND SCHOENECK & KING, LLP, SYRACUSE (LOUIS P. DI LORENZO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., HAYES, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.

Appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Seneca County (Bender, J.), entered December 26, 2001, which granted the petition in part and voided two absentee ballots.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding after losing the election for the office of Seneca County Supervisor from the Town of Waterloo to Al Taney (respondent) by one vote. Petitioner alleged in the petition that three absentee ballots counted in favor of respondent, one of the two successful candidates for the office, should have been invalidated. Supreme Court properly granted the petition in part, determining that two of the three ballots are void and therefore cannot be counted. Contrary to respondents' contention, petitioner properly preserved his right to seek judicial review by objection to the Board of Elections, Inspections and Canvassers of Seneca County during the final canvassing of the votes (see, Election Law § 9-114 [1]; § 16-106 [1]). Also contrary to respondents' contention, the two remaining candidates for the office, one of whom was the other successful candidate, are not necessary parties to this proceeding. Necessary parties are those "who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties * * * or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the [proceeding]" (CPLR 1001 [a]; see also, Matter of Ullman v Power, 17 A.D.2d 792, affd 12 N.Y.2d 724), circumstances that do not apply to the two remaining candidates. The "actual adverse parties to this controversy" were properly before the court (Matter of Maniscalco v Power, 4 A.D.2d 479, 480, affd 3 N.Y.2d 918).

The court properly invalidated the ballot designated Exhibit 1 based upon the extraneous marks outside of the voting squares for the offices of Supreme Court Justice and District Attorney. Similarly, the court properly invalidated the ballot designated Exhibit 2 based upon the extraneous mark...