You are here: / / 2014 COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY...

2014 COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE 2016 COUNTY COMMITTEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the 2014 County Committee (of the Conservative Party) did not have the authority to fill vacancies in the 2016 County Committee. Only the 2016 County Committee had that authority:

​

The filling of vacancies in a political party’s county committee is governed by Election Law § 2-118, which provides, in pertinent part, that, in the case of a failure to elect a member of the committee, the vacancy created thereby shall be filled by the remaining members of the committee. Therefore, only the 2016 County Committee had the authority to fill the subject vacancies.

With the election of the 2016 County Committee in the primary election, the 2014 County Committee had no further official authority, and no rule of the 2014 County Committee could extend the authority of its executive committee to continue to exercise functions in substantial matters after the members of the 2016 County Committee had been elected … . The filling of vacancies for the 2016 County Committee was a “substantial matter,” and therefore the actions of the 2014 Executive Committee in filling vacancies in the 2016 County Committee were improper … . Matter of Brocato v Tinari, 2018 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-17-18

ELECTION LAW (2014 COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE 2016 COUNTY COMMITTEE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE BUS WAS BEHIND PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AND BOTH THE BUS AND THE SCOOTER APPARENTLY CHANGED LANES AT THE SAME TIME (SECOND DEPT).
FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY CHARTER PROVISION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE OF A PENDING TAX FORECLOSURE SALE TO MORTGAGEES AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE MORTGAGEE’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THIS PROCEEDING; THE MORTGAGEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CITY WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LOAN WAS ORALLY CONVERTED TO A GIFT BY DECEDENT, CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF A GIFT EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE GUILTY PLEA; PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
Discovery Demands Overbroad

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

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED DEFENDANT... STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT SUBJECT...