Merber v. Bd. of Elections

• Decision Date: 29 May 2019
• Docket Number: 100643/19, 100644/19,9689–9690–9691, 100642/19
• Citation: 102 N.Y.S.3d 23,172 A.D.3d 624
• Parties: In re Helen MERBER, Petitioner–Respondent, Keith J. Edwards, et al., Petitioners, v. The BOARD OF ELECTIONS in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant. In re Patricia Still, Petitioner–Respondent, Tanuja Gupta, et al., Petitioners, v. The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant. In re Glenn M. Speer, Petitioner–Respondent, Shelley Mazor, et al., Petitioners, v. The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

172 A.D.3d 624
102 N.Y.S.3d 23

In re Helen MERBER, Petitioner–Respondent,

Keith J. Edwards, et al., Petitioners,
v.
The BOARD OF ELECTIONS in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant.

In re Patricia Still, Petitioner–Respondent,

Tanuja Gupta, et al., Petitioners,
v.
The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant.

In re Glenn M. Speer, Petitioner–Respondent,

Shelley Mazor, et al., Petitioners,
v.
The Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent–Appellant.

9689–9690–9691
100642/19
100643/19
100644/19

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

ENTERED: MAY 29, 2019

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), for appellant.

Stoll, Glickman and Bellina, LLP, New York (Leo Glickman of counsel), for respondents.

172 A.D.3d 625

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 2, 2019, which granted petitioners' request for an order pursuant to article 16 of the Election Law declaring valid, proper, sufficient and legally effective the petitions on behalf of petitioners designating them as candidates for election to the Democratic Party Positions of Members of the Democratic Party Committee from the 67th and 69th Assembly Districts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners' article 16 special proceedings should be deemed timely because petitioners did not receive notice that their designating petitions contained defects within the 14–day statutory period prescribed by Election Law § 16–102(2) and they acted with due diligence by promptly commencing the article 16 proceeding after that period ended (see Matter of Pell v. Coveney, 37 N.Y.2d 494, 496, 373 N.Y.S.2d 860, 336 N.E.2d 421 [1975] ; Matter of Jones v. Sachs, 133 A.D.2d 195, 196, 518 N.Y.S.2d 700 [2d Dept. 1987], lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 803, 527 N.Y.S.2d 769, 522 N.E.2d 1067 [1988] ; Matter of Musolino v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 89 A.D.2d 1033, 1033, 454 N.Y.S.2d 342 [3d Dept. 1982] ).

102 N.Y.S.3d 25

Petitioners' designating petitions were not facially defective because...