You are here: / / PARTY OBJECTING TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES’ NOMINATING PETITION...

PARTY OBJECTING TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES’ NOMINATING PETITION DID NOT PROPERLY NOTIFY THE CANDIDATE OF THE OBJECTIONS, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the State Election Board, determined the nominating petition of a candidate for the US House of Representatives should not have been invalidated because the objecting party did not comply with the requirements for notifying the candidate of the objections:

9 NYCRR 6204.1 (b) provides that “[n]o specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the [State B]oard unless the objector filing the specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specification[s] to each candidate for public office named in the petition . . . on or before the date of filing of [the] specifications with the [State B]oard” … . Suffice it to say, the elemental prerequisite of any service requirement is that a party is served with the correct documents … . Plainly, this did not occur. Here, petitioner was not served with “a duplicate copy” of the specifications of objections, but was instead served with specifications of objections related to another candidate. Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that the service upon petitioner of an order to show cause and supporting papers seeking to invalidate the nominating petition — which contained the specifications of objections related to petitioner — could serve to remedy the original defect, such service was not effectuated “on or before the date of filing of [the] specifications with the [State B]oard” (9 NYCRR 6204.1 [b]). Further, the fact that petitioner thereafter actually received the correct specifications is irrelevant, as “notice received by means other than those authorized . . . cannot serve to bring [the objections] within the jurisdiction of the [State Board]”…. Inasmuch as 9 NYCRR 6204.1 (b) is “'mandatory and may not be disregarded,'” we are constrained to conclude that “[Liscum's] failure to abide by the mandatory service provisions thereof deprived the [State] Board of jurisdiction to properly consider the objections and thereafter rule to invalidate the petition” … . Matter of Neal v Liscum, 2018 NY Slip Op 06070, Third Dept 9-17-18

ELECTION LAW (PARTY OBJECTING TO CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES' NOMINATING PETITION DID NOT PROPERLY NOTIFY THE CANDIDATE OF THE OBJECTIONS, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE REGULATION REQUIRING NEW YORK HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR ‘RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS,’ IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (THIRD DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT DISCLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO DISCLOSURE.
Court Deferred to the Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute Because the Interpretation Involved Knowledge and Understanding of the Underlying Operational Practices (In the Usual Case, a Court Will Not Defer to an Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute)/The Term “Business Enterprise” in Tax Law 14 (a) Refers to the Taxable Entity, Not the Legal Entity
THE ABANDONMENT PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENT FATHER INTENDED TO FOREGO HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS AND, IN FACT, PETITIONER AFFIRMATIVELY INTERFERED WITH FATHER’S ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​
At Least Some of the Information In a Report Prepared for the Town by Outside Counsel May Be Subject to Disclosure Because the Attorney-Client Privilege Was Waived to the Extent the Contents of the Report Were Described at a Public Hearing
IN REVIEWING THE GRAND JURY MINUTES, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS; RATHER THOSE COUNTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (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

REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED... DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM...