You are here: / / PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION...

PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAW AND COMPELLING REMEDIAL ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined petitioners did not have the authority under the Election Law to force a respondent to refund a $200,000 contribution to an election committee, but did have capacity and standing to bring an action seeking a declaration respondents violated the Election Law and compelling a respondent to amend its registration documents:

Contrary to Supreme Court’s conclusion, petitioners do not wholly lack the authority to commence this proceeding/action. A party lacks the authority to sue where he or she is without both capacity and standing to sue … . “Capacity to sue is a threshold matter allied with, but conceptually distinct from, the question of standing” …  Capacity “concerns a litigant’s power to appear and bring its grievance before the court” …  and may, in some circumstances, be granted by statute … . In contrast, “[s]tanding involves a determination of whether the party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to cast . . . the dispute in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution” … . The concept of standing “is, at its foundation, aimed at advancing the judiciary’s self-imposed policy of restraint, which precludes the issuance of advisory opinions” … .

… [P]etitioners — five qualified voters who reside within … the 9th Assembly District — have been statutorily afforded a private right of action to seek a declaration that [responent] violated the Election Law and to compel [responents] to comply with the Election Law . Thus, petitioners have both capacity and standing to seek such relief. * * *

… Election Law § 14-126 (2) [does not] completely extinguish[] the private right of action granted in Election Law § 16-114 (3) so as to deprive petitioners of the authority to seek an order declaring that [respondent] violated Election Law § 14-107-a and compelling [respondent] to amend its registration documents. Matter of Lauder v Pellegrino, 2017 NY Slip Op 06337, Third Dept 8-24-17

 

ELECTION LAW (PETITIONERS HAD CAPACITY AND STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION RESPONDENTS’ VIOLATED THE ELECTION LAW AND COMPELLING REMEDIAL ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER ONLY A SHORT PERIOD OF DELIBERATIONS, JEOPARDY ATTACHED AND DEFENDANT CAN NOT BE REPROSECUTED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF THE APPLICATION JUSTIFIED THE BOARD’S REFUSING TO REVIEW IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE RELEVANT HEARING WAS INDICATED ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO RECOMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER IT WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING AND ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S REFERENCES TO STRICKEN TESTIMONY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRING REVERSAL.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO FATHER CONCERNING VISITATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INVOLVED MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND IN KEEPING FATHER INFORMED ABOUT MOTHER’S HEALTH (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK’S 2017 DE-ACCELERATION LETTER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND THEREFORE SERVED TO STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TRIGGERED BY THE INITIAL FORECLOSURE ACTION IN 2012; THEREFORE THE SECOND FORECLOSURE ACTION BROUGHT IN 2018 WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PURCHASED OFFICE FURNITURE AFTER HE WAS HIRED TO WORK FROM HOME AND WAS INJURED CARRYING THE FURNITURE TO HIS HOME OFFICE; THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANALYZED THE CASE UNDER A RIGID NEW STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED STANDARD (THIRD 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING... FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND...