You are here: / / Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot Not Demonstrated to Have Been Permeated...

Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot Not Demonstrated to Have Been Permeated by Fraud

The Second Department determined that a petition for the opportunity to ballot was not so permeated with fraud to justify granting a petition to invalidate it:

As a general rule, a petition for an opportunity to ballot will be invalidated on the ground of fraud only if there is a showing that the entire petition is permeated with fraud … or, if not permeated with fraud, where a potential candidate who stands to benefit from the validation of the petition for an opportunity to ballot has participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud … .

Here, the petitioners did not sustain their burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the totality of the instances of forged signatures on the subject petition for an opportunity to ballot rose to the level at which it could be said that the petition was permeated with fraud … . Matter of Steinert v Daly, 2014 NY Slip Op 04206, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
A JUDGE CANNOT DELEGATE PARENTAL ACCESS DETERMINATIONS TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL.
DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA), BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES TO THIS HOLDOVER ACTION WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE HSTPA WAS ENACTED BUT HAS NOT PROCEEDED TO JUDGMENT; THEREFORE THE ACT NEED NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO PRECLUDE THE HOLDOVER ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH REPAIRED EXTERIOR STAIRS DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
FAMILY COURT DID NOT ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; NEW HEARING ORDERD (SECOND DEPT).
UCC Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applied to Breach of Warranty Cause of Action​

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

Defendant-Attorney Can Seek Contribution from Succeeding Attorney Who Contributed... Mother’s Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Assistance for Child Fatally...