You are here: / / THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO INVALIDATE A...

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERVICE OF THE PETITION TO INVALIDATE A CERTIFICATE OF NOMINATION RAN OUT ON JULY 12; THE FACT THAT THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ORDERED SERVICE BY JULY 19 DID NOT EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEYOND JULY 12 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petition to invalidate a certificate of nomination was properly dismissed as untimely. The fact that the order to show cause directing service of the petition by a date which was beyond the statute of limitation was of no consequence:

… Election Law § 16-102 (2) provides … that “[a] proceeding with respect to a primary, convention, meeting of a party committee, or caucus shall be instituted within [10] days after the holding of such primary or convention or the filing of the certificate of nominations made at such caucus or meeting of a party committee.” A special proceeding, in turn, is commenced by the filing of a petition … . Notably, “[a] petitioner raising a challenge under Election Law § 16-102 must commence the proceeding and complete service on all the necessary parties within the period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102 (2). In order to properly complete service, actual delivery must occur no later than the last day upon which the proceeding may be commenced” … . As the certificate of nomination … was filed on July 2, 2021, the last day upon which to commence this proceeding was July 12, 2021.

Even accepting as true that the petition was timely filed on July 12, 2021, the fact remains … that none of the named respondents was served with the petition prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. To the extent that petitioners rely upon the service provisions embodied in the order to show cause, which permitted service by various means on or before July 19, 2021, such reliance is misplaced. A court cannot extend the time within which to commence an action or proceeding (see CPLR 201 ,,,). Matter of Facteau v Clinton County Bd. of Elections, 2021 NY Slip Op 04743, Third Dept 8-18-21

 

You might also like
Parol Evidence Demonstrated What Appeared to Be a Contract Was Not—There Was No Meeting of the Minds Re: the Consideration for the Contract
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Adequately Describe Location of Slip and Fall Rendered Notice of Intention Jurisdictionally Defective
Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion for Summary Judgment
Vocational Factors Not Considered Re: “Temporary Marked Partial Disability Rate”
PLAINTIFF COUNTY, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE NURSING HOME WHERE DECEDENT WAS CARED FOR, WAS ENTITLED TO DISCLOSURE OF DECEDENT’S TAX RETURNS; THE RETURNS ARE RELEVANT TO WHETHER DECEDENT’S SON BREACHED THE “RESPONSIBLE PARTY AGREEMENT” WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO USE THE DECEDENT’S INCOME TO PAY THE NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).
Real Property Purchased by Husband Prior to the Marriage Cannot Be Transformed Into Marital Property, Despite’s Wife’s Contribution of Her Own Funds ($30,000) to the Purchase/Wife Entitled to Equitable Distribution of the Appreciation of the Property After Marriage But No Proof On that Topic Was Offered Here/Wife Entitled to Recoup Mortgage Payments Made by Her
ALTHOUGH DEFECTS IN GUILTY PLEA NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP.

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

THE STIPULATION OF DIVORCE DIVESTED THE HUSBAND OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE MARITAL... PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE...