Notholt v. Nassau Cnty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 19 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2015-07263 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Myra NOTHOLT, et al., appellants, v. NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to validate petitions designating the petitioners as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 10, 2015, for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the party positions of Members of the Nassau County Democratic Committee from certain Election Districts within the 20th Assembly District, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered August 6, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying so much of the petition as sought to validate petitions designating certain petitioners as candidates in the primary election to be held on September 10, 2015, for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the party positions of Members of the Nassau County Democratic Committee from Election Districts 29, 30, 31, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, 58, 60, 72, 74, 77, 81, 86, and 87 within the 20th Assembly District; as so modified, the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition to validate.
The petitioners filed designating petitions with the Nassau County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) seeking to be named as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 10, 2015, for the nomination of the Democratic Party for the party positions of Members of the Nassau County Democratic Committee from certain Election Districts within the 20th Assembly District. The designating petitions identified the party position sought by reference to Assembly District 20 and a numbered Election District, but failed to set forth any town or city associated with that numbered Election District. Objections to the designating petitions were filed with the Board, which determined that the designating petitions were invalid because they failed to set forth sufficient information to identify the party positions being sought. The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to validate the designating petitions. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioners appeal.
Initially, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the petition to validate was properly verified solely by the petitioner William Notholt, since, in this case, he was “united in interest” with the other petitioners (CPLR 3020[d] ; see Matter of Lansner v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 72 N.Y.2d 929, 532 N.Y.S.2d 840, 529 N.E.2d 170 ).
Election Law § 6–132(1) requires that each sheet of a designating petition “state the public office or party position sought by the candidate” (Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 275 A.D.2d 589, 590, 713 N.Y.S.2d 89 ; see Matter of Sears v. Kimmel, 76 A.D.3d 1113, 907 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Matter of Bliss v. Nobles, 297 A.D.2d 457, 746 N.Y.S.2d 410 ). “The description of a public office contains two components—the title of the office and the geographic boundaries of the area represented by the office” (Matter of Ighile v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 66 A.D.3d 899, 900, 887 N.Y.S.2d 637 ; see Matter of Coluccio v. Fox, 286 A.D.2d 552, 729 N.Y.S.2d 223 ; Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 275 A.D.2d at 590, 713 N.Y.S.2d 89 ). “The description will be deemed adequate so long as the petition, read as a whole, is ‘sufficiently informative ... so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections' ” (Matter of Ighile v. Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 66 A.D.3d at 900, 887 N.Y.S.2d 637, quoting Matter of Donnelly v. McNab, 83 A.D.2d 896, 896, 442 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; see Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 275 A.D.2d at 590, 713 N.Y.S.2d 89 ). However, “where ‘the title of the office being sought cannot be discerned by recourse to information contained in the designating petition,’ it will be invalidated” (Matter of Levine v. Turco, 43 A.D.3d 618, 621, 841 N.Y.S.2d 388, quoting Matter of Hayes v. New York State Bd....
To continue reading
Request your trial