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
PLAINTIFF, INTER ALIA, ALLEGED THE FLORIDA DEFENDANT IN THIS FRAUD-BASED ACTION DEPOSITED RELEVANT FUNDS IN A NEW YORK LAW FIRM ESCROW ACCOUNT AND CONVERTED THOSE FUNDS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
NEITHER NEW YORK NOR PENNSYLVANIA IS THE HOME STATE OF THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO THE STATE; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR” THAT THE LOSER WOULD PAY THE WINNER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES; THEREFORE THE FEE AWARD WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FEDERAL FELONY DID NOT QUALIFY AS A NEW YORK PREDICATE FELONY, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).
SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE RECORDS WERE DESCRIBED; THE INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE BREAK-IN WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN NO SIMILAR BREAK-INS IN THE VICINITY, PLAINTIFFS’ SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURY DURING A ROBBERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

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