Murray v. Suffolk Cnty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 15 August 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05973,949 N.Y.S.2d 657,98 A.D.3d 624 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Dean MURRAY, appellant, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY BOARD of ELECTIONS, respondent, Edward J. Hennessey, respondent-respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102 to invalidate a petition designating Edward J. Hennessey as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2012, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, 3rd Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated August 2, 2012, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of Edward J. Hennessey which was to dismiss the petition, and dismissed the petition.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In order to state a cause of action pursuant to Election Law § 16–102(1), a petition must “allege[ ] facts sufficient to establish the petitioner's right to the particular relief sought and provide[ ] notice of the transactions and occurrences intended to be proven” (Matter of Pisani v. Kane, 87 A.D.3d 650, 651, 928 N.Y.S.2d 363;see CPLR 3013; Matter of Klein v. Garfinkle, 12 A.D.3d 604, 605, 786 N.Y.S.2d 77). Here, the allegations in the petition were “insufficiently detailed to apprise the respondent candidate of the allegations being made against his designating petition” (Matter of Waugh v. Nowicki, 10 A.D.3d 437, 438, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition ( see id. see also Matter of Berney v. Bosworth,87 A.D.3d 948, 949, 929 N.Y.S.2d 178;Matter of Romaine v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 65 A.D.3d 993, 994–995, 884 N.Y.S.2d 770;Matter of O'Toole v. D'Apice, 112 A.D.2d 1078, 493 N.Y.S.2d 56).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lord v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections
-
Baldeo v. Bd. of Elections in N.Y.
...adequate notice of the signatures he was challenging and the grounds therefor (see CPLR 3016[b] ; Matter of Murray v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 624, 625, 949 N.Y.S.2d 657 ; Matter of Waugh v. Nowicki, 10 A.D.3d at 438, 780 N.Y.S.2d 737 ). IANNACCI, J.P., CHAMBERS, GENOVESI ......
-
Skinner v. Nelson
...While we disagree with the petitioners' contention that the entire designating petition should be invalidated due to the inclusion [949 N.Y.S.2d 657]therein of names of candidates who did not give their consent to be so included, the Supreme Court should have invalidated those sheets of the......