Onondaga decision

8/20/2019 Onondaga decision

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/onondaga-decision 1/5

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

DECISIONS FILED

OCTOBER 19 2015

HON. HENRY J. SCUDDER PRESIDING JUSTICE

HON. NANCY E. SMITH

HON. JOHN V. CENTRA

HON. ERIN M. PERADOTTO

HON. EDWARD D. CARNI

HON. STEPHEN K. LINDLEY

HON. JOSEPH D. VALENTINO

HON. GERALD J. WHALEN

HON. BRIAN F. DEJOSEPH ASSOCIATE JUSTICES

FRANCES E. CAFARELL CLERK



ELECTION LAW CASES

Counsel for any party interested in pursuing an appeal to the Court of Appealsshould contact the Court of Appeals immediately upon receipt of this Court’sdecision.



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1129.1

CAE 15-01662

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P. J . , SMI TH, LI NDLEY, AND VALENTI NO, J J .

I N THE MATTER OF THOMAS V. DADEY, J R. , CHAI RMANOF ONONDAGA COUNTY REPUBLI CAN PARTY COMMI TTEE ANDOBJ ECTOR AGGRI EVED, AND J OHN DEMETRO, ET AL. ,OBJ ECTORS AGGRI EVED, PETI TI ONERS- RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DUSTI N M. CZARNY AND HELEN KI GGI NS WALSH,COMMI SSI ONERS CONSTI TUTI NG ONONDAGA COUNTY BOARDOF ELECTI ONS, RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS, J AMES ROMEO, ET AL. , PURPORTED CANDI DATES OFWOMEN’ S EQUALI TY PARTY, RESPONDENTS,

GREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLAS KELLNER, ANDREW SPANOAND PETER KOSI NSKI , COMMI SSI ONERS CONSTI TUTI NGNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTI ONS,RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS,

PURPORTED WOMEN’ S EQUALI TY PARTY, AND I TSPURPORTED COMMI TTEES, RACHEL GOLD, PURPORTEDACTI NG CHAI R, AND KATHLEEN J OY, PURPORTED SECRETARY,RESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS.

GREENBERG TRAURI G LLP, NEW YORK CI TY ( STEVEN C. RUSSO OF COUNSEL) , FORRESPONDENTS- APPELLANTS.

THOMAS RUSSELL SCHEPP, I I , MANLI US, FOR PETI TI ONERS- RESPONDENTS.

Appeal f r oman order ( denomi nated order and j udgment ) of t heSupr eme Cour t , Onondaga Count y (Nor man W. Sei t er , J r . , J . ) , ent er edSept ember 29, 2015 i n a pr oceedi ng pur suant t o El ect i on Law ar t i cl e16. The or der i nval i dat ed a cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on nami ng sever al

i ndi vi dual s as candi dat es of t he Women’ s Equal i t y Par t y f or cer t ai npubl i c of f i ces .

I t i s her eby ORDERED t hat t he or der so appeal ed f r om i sunani mousl y af f i r med wi t hout cost s.

Memorandum: Respondent s- appel l ant s appeal f r om an orderi nval i dat i ng t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on nami ng sever al nonappeal i ngr espondent s as candi dates of t he Women’ s Equal i t y Part y ( WEP) f orcer t ai n publ i c of f i ces i n a gener al el ect i on t o be hel d on November 3,2015. Supr eme Cour t i nval i dat ed t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on on t he



-2- 1129.1

CAE 15-01662

gr ound t hat i t does not compl y wi t h El ect i on Law § 6- 128 i nsof ar ast her e i s a “conf l i ct r el at i ng t o t he r ul es or t he r ul e- maki ng body”( El ect i on Law § 6- 128 [ 4] ) . We concl ude t hat t he cour t pr oper l yi nval i dat ed t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on, al t hough our r easoni ngdi f f er s f r om t hat of t he cour t .

We agr ee wi t h r espondent s- appel l ant s t hat t he cour t er r ed i n

i nval i dat i ng t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on on t he gr ound of noncompl i ance wi t h El ect i on Law § 6- 128 ( 4) . Consi st ent wi t h sect i on6- 128 ( 1) ( f ) , t he chal l enged cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on cont ai ned acer t i f i ed copy of t he par t y rul es, whi ch was cer t i f i ed by Gover norAndr ew Cuomo and Li eut enant Governor Kathl een Hochul , i . e. , t wo out oft he sl at e of f our st at ewi de candi dat es who r an on t he WEP l i ne i n t he2014 gener al el ect i on. Those r ul es wer e f i l ed wi t h t he New Yor k St at eBoar d of El ect i ons ( NYSBOE) on J ul y 2, 2015, and amended r ul es al socer t i f i ed by Governor Cuomo and Li eut enant Governor Hochul were f i l edwi t h t he NYSBOE on J ul y 14, 2015. Al t hough t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hatcompet i ng r ul es pur port i ng t o be WEP part y rul es were subsequent l yf i l ed wi t h t he NYSBOE, we concl ude that , as our col l eagues i n t he Thi r d Depar t ment r ecent l y hel d i n a si mi l ar case, t he mer e f i l i ng of such compet i ng r ul es di d not cr eat e a “quest i on or conf l i ct ” r el at i ngt o t he r ul es cont ai ned i n t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on f or t hepur poses of sect i on 6- 128 ( 4) , i nasmuch as t he compet i ng r ul es werenot cer t i f i ed by any st at ewi de candi dat es ( see Matter of Grasso v Cleveland , ___ AD3d ___ , ___ [ Oct . 14, 2015] ; cf. Matter of

Independence Party of N.Y. v Board of Elections in City of N.Y., 213AD2d 209, 209, appeal dismissed , lv denied 85 NY2d 867; see generally

McKi nney’ s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, St atut es § 96) .

We never t hel ess concl ude t hat t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on i si nval i d on t he gr ound t hat i t does not “cont ai n . . . [ a] n af f i davi tcont ai ni ng a st at ement by t he pr esi di ng of f i cer and secr et ar y of t hecommi t t ee that t hey ar e such of f i cer s and t he st atement s i n t hecer t i f i cat e ar e t r ue, ” as r equi r ed by El ect i on Law § 6- 128 ( 1) ( g) .Al t hough pet i t i oner s r equest t hat t hi s Cour t r emi t t he mat t er t oSupr eme Cour t t o addr ess t hat gr ound i n t he f i r st i nst ance, we“decl i ne to do so and i nst ead r each such [ gr ound] i n t he i nt er est of j udi ci al economy” ( Matter of Cobleskill Stone Prods., Inc. v Town of Schoharie, 126 AD3d 1094, 1096) . The chal l enged cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on cont ai ns t he not ar i zed si gnat ur es of Rachel Gol d, as“Pr esi di ng Of f i cer of Nomi nat i ng Meet i ng and Act i ng Chai r of t he WEP, ”and Kathl een J oy, as “Secr etary of Nomi nat i ng Meet i ng and the WEP, ”

but i t does not cont ai n a st at ement by ei t her Gol d or J oy at t est i ng t ot he t r ut h of t he st at ement s i n t he cer t i f i cat e. I n our vi ew, t heomi ssi on of such a st at ement const i t ut es a “subst ant i ve depar t ur e f r omt he mandates of t he st atut e and not a mere er r or i n f orm” ( Matter of McGuire v Gamache, 22 AD3d 614, 615, affd 5 NY3d 444; see Matter of

Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716, 717; see also Matter of Griffin v Torres,131 AD3d 631, 632) . Because st r i ct , and not j ust subst ant i al ,compl i ance i s r equi r ed “wi t h st atut ory commands as t o mat t ers of pr escr i bed cont ent ” ( Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774; see

Matter of Boniello v Niagara County Bd. of Elections, 131 AD3d 806,807) , t he cer t i f i cat e of nomi nat i on i s i nval i d ( see Grasso, ___ AD3d



-3- 1129.1

CAE 15-01662

at ___) .

Ent er ed: Oct ober 19, 2015 Fr ances E. Caf ar el lCl er k of t he Cour t

Documents

Onondaga decision