You are here: / / PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY...
,

PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined petitioner, a journalist, was not entitled under the Election Law to examine 353 ballots cast in the primary election for Queens County District Attorney which was won by only 55 votes:

Election Law § 16-112 … only empowers the court to direct the examination of a ballot by a candidate whose name appeared thereon (or his or her agent). Thus, insofar as Election Law § 3-222 provides that voted ballots may be examined by court order, the court would not be empowered to direct the examination of ballots by the petitioner, who was not a candidate (or a designated agent of a candidate). Further, the petitioner has not set forth a purpose for examination of the affidavit ballots which could possibly have been intended by the legislature in enacting Election Law § 3-222 … .

Moreover, insofar as the petitioner does not claim to have any interest in the outcome of the primary election, the petitioner has failed to set forth any injury which the subject proceeding is intended to address so as to confer standing. In fact, the petitioner has not set forth any interest different from any other member of the public, aside from his desire to obtain access to information to aid in his career as a journalist. Moreover, any determination that the petitioner has standing to petition the court for access to the affidavit ballots at issue would be in contravention of the legislature’s clear intent “to guard against unjustified erosion of the policies of ballot secrecy and finality” … . Matter of Hamm v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 08232, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Plaintiff’s Interpretation of the Contract Was the Only Reasonable Interpretation (Rendering the Contract Ambiguous)
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE NOT PROVEN; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Father Demonstrated His Loss of Employment Justified a Downward Modification of Child Support
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND 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

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241... THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S...