You are here: / / PETITION SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE SUFFOLK...

PETITION SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking to invalidate the organizational meeting of the Suffolk County Committee of the Conservative Party should have been denied. The decision is fact specific and deals with many Election Law procedural issues that cannot be fairly summarized here:

… [W]e are mindful that “a court’s jurisdiction to intervene in election matters is limited to the powers expressly conferred by statute” … . The ” internal issues arising within political parties are best resolved within the party organization itself and judicial involvement should only be undertaken as a last resort'” … . While the courts “will act to protect the rights of committee persons to be present and to vote at meetings of the committee” … , ” [j]udicial intervention is only warranted upon a clear showing that a party or its leaders have violated [the Election Law] or the party’s own rules adopted in accordance with law, or otherwise [have] violat[ed] the rights of party members or the electorate'” … . No such showing was made in this case. Matter of Auerbach v Suffolk County Comm. of the Conservative Party, 2019 NY Slip Op 02515, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

You might also like
NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILD DID NOT WANT PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER VISITATION WITH FATHER WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHICH ALLEGED THE OFFICER FABRICATED A WEAPONS CHARGE.
DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, INSTEAD THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS ‘PREMATURE,’ MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENTLY STRONG SHOWING TO SUPPORT DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S PERSONAL TAX RETURNS; PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT A GOOD FAITH AFFIRMATION WARRANTS DENIAL OF THE DISCOVERY MOTION; THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Whether Hospital Liable for Independent Actions of Its Employees Under Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring/Retention Theories
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHE TYPED IN THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM A DETECTIVE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations

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

NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED,... ATTORNEY WHO DRAFTED THE 2005 WILL APPOINTING THE ATTORNEY AS EXECUTOR WAS REQUIRED...