Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying a petition to validate a designating petition for a New York State Assembly primary election candidate. The court held that the petition and supporting exhibits did not sufficiently particularize the challenged signature determinations and that an additional exhibit submitted after commencement was untimely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition sufficiently particularized the individual Board of Elections determinations and signatures being challenged in a proceeding to validate a designating petition.
- Whether Supreme Court properly declined to consider an exhibit submitted after commencement of the proceeding that identified additional signatures allegedly invalidated in error.
Holdings
- A validating petition must specify the individual determinations of the board of elections claimed to be erroneous, including the signatures allegedly improperly invalidated. Because the petition and supporting exhibits were not sufficiently particularized, the record did not support the petitioner's challenge to the Board's invalidation of signatures.
- Supreme Court properly declined to consider the exhibit submitted on May 10 because it was untimely and did not provide timely notice of the petitioner's intent to challenge the Board's determination concerning the additional signatures.
Key quotations
“A validating petition must specify the individual determinations of a board of elections that the candidate claims were erroneous, including the signatures that the candidate claims were improperly invalidated” (*1)
“Election Law proceedings are subject to severe time constraints, and they require immediate action” (*1-*2)
Factual background
The Board of Elections determined that the petitioner's designating petition was invalid because it contained fewer than the requisite number of signatures. The petitioner sought to validate the petition and alleged that the Board improperly invalidated certain signatures. Two days after commencing the proceeding, she submitted an exhibit identifying 18 additional signatures that she claimed had also been improperly invalidated, but Supreme Court did not consider that submission.
Procedural history
The petitioner commenced a proceeding on May 8, 2026, challenging the Board of Elections' invalidation of signatures on her designating petition for a Democratic primary election. She later submitted an exhibit on May 10 identifying 18 additional signatures allegedly invalidated in error. Supreme Court did not consider the exhibit, denied the validation petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed.