You are here: / / 14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of...

14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of Limitations, Applied

The Second Department determined that a putative Article 78 proceeding seeking to exclude candidates from the ballot based upon alleged violations of the Election Law was governed by the Election Law, not the Article 78, statute of limitations:

Notwithstanding the characterization of this proceeding as one pursuant to CPLR article 78, the petitioners seek to exclude candidates from the ballot based on their alleged failure to comply with the nomination and designation procedures of Election Law article 6, as supplemented by the general provisions of Election Law § 1-106. Accordingly, this proceeding is governed by the statute of limitations set forth in Election Law § 16-102(2) … . Since it is undisputed that this proceeding was not commenced within 14 days after the last day to file the designating and opportunity-to-ballot petitions at issue, as required by Election Law § 16-102(2), the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as untimely.  Matter of Ciotti v Westchester County Bd of Elections, 2013 NY Slip Op 06000, 2nd Dept 9-25-13

 

You might also like
Article 81 Guardianship Hearing Should Not Have Been Held in the Absence of the Alleged Incapacitated Person; Counsel Should Have Been Appointed for the Alleged Incapacitated Person
Criteria for Vacation of a Stipulation of Settlement Not Met
Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury
Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement
BECAUSE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS OF THE INITIAL CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE WERE INVALIDATED, THE PETITION TO VALIDATE CERTIFICATES OF SUBSTITUTION FOR ANOTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT WAS USING ONLY HIS FISTS FIGHTING THE MUCH SMALLER DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEADLY-FORCE-JUSTIFICATION-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS 911 CALL WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE OR AS A PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor’s Breach of Contract Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Despite Absence of Privity

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

Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences Should Have Been Imposed Where “Actus... Emergency Doctrine Explained; Admissibility of Deposition Excerpts Re: Summary...