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
THE PROOF THE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WAS NOT REBUTTED BY THE DEFENDANT’S UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the Matters Stated Therein—Notice Improperly Sought Admissions that Went to the Heart of the Controversy
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITIY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DEFENSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT FITNESS CENTER; ALLEGEDLY, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE TRAINER INSTRUCTED HIM TO ATTEMPT A BALANCING EXERCISE (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
Evidence of Shooting Committed by Defendant’s Twin Brother Was Highly Prejudicial and Had No Bearing Upon Defendant’s Guilt—Murder Conviction Reversed
Drug Treatment and Drug Testing Facilities Do Not Have a Duty to Provide the Test Results With a Disclaimer Indicating the Tests Were Done According to “Clinical,” Not “Forensic,” Standards—Here the “Clinical” Results Were Disseminated and Used In Court Proceedings
THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 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