You are here: / / THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A...

THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 94 absentee ballots suffered from a curable defect. Therefore the absentee ballots should not have been deemed invalid. Rather, the voters should have been notified of the defect and given an opportunity to correct it. The defect concerned unsealed envelopes which were inside sealed envelopes:

Here, each of the 94 absentee ballots was received by the Board with an unsealed ballot affirmation envelope inside a completely sealed outer mailing envelope. Therefore, the defects were curable under Election Law § 9-209(3)(b)-(e) (see 9 NYCRR 6210.21[g][2]). Matter of Amato v Sullivan, 2022 NY Slip Op 07039, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: Here the absentee ballots were deemed invalid because envelopes were not sealed. However, pursuant to the Election Law, unsealed envelopes inside sealed envelopes constitute a curable defect. The voters should have been given the opportunity to cure the defect.

 

You might also like
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report
DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Individual Defendants’ Ties to New York, Including Business Activities in New York, Were Not Sufficient to Afford New York Jurisdiction, Pursuant to CPLR 302, Over a Lawsuit Stemming from a Personal Injury in New Jersey—CPLR 301, Which Affords New York Courts Jurisdiction Over Corporations Doing Business in New York, Does Not Extend to Individuals Doing Business in New York
Note of Issue Which States Discovery Not Complete Is a Nullity
Failure to Include Restitution in Plea Agreement Required that the Sentencing Court Give the Defendant the Opportunity to Withdraw Her Plea Before Including Restitution in the Sentence

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

CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED... DEFENDANT WAS A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS ENTITLED TO...