You are here: / / Failure to Check Box on Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petitions

Failure to Check Box on Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petitions

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that the designating petitions were properly rejected because the box on the cover sheet indicating that the required number of signatures were included was not checked:

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Although the provisions of the Election Law “shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” (Election Law § 6-134[10]; see 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]), this matter does not involve a mere technical defect subject to cure pursuant to Election Law § 6-134(2) … . Rather, the express terms of the cover sheet drafted and submitted by the petitioners directed the Board to disregard the designating petitions as void and not accept them for filing. To hold that the designating petitions were nonetheless filed would undermine procedural safeguards against both fraud and confusion, as election officials and interested parties could not have understood the designating petitions actually to have been filed (cf. Election Law § 6-134[10]; 9 NYCRR 6215.1, 6215.6…).  Matter of Balberg v Board of Elections in the City of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 05897, 2nd Dept, 9-18-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE VAN DRIVER AND THE EMPLOYER OF THE VAN DRIVER WHO MADE A LEFT TURN INTO THE MOTORCYCLE’S PATH, THE GRAVES AMENDMENT MAY APPLY TO THE LESSOR OF THE VAN, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY AS SHE WAS NOT A COVERED PERSON UNDER THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Under Powers Reserved to the Town by an 1818 Law, the Town Cannot Regulate Shoreline Dune Reconstruction and Erosion Control Undertaken by a Village within the Town
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DISCOVERY WOULD LEAD TO EVIDENCE ESSENTIAL TO DEFEND AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “GOOD CAUSE” FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, BUT DID DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO AN EXTENSION IN THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
Response to Sex Offender Treatment Program Must Be “Exceptional” to Warrant Downward Departure (SORA)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Conflicting Evidence About Whether Attorney Discharged for Cause (Thereby Prohibiting... Hearing Officer’s Factual Misconduct Findings Cannot Be Ignored