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
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.
WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
Reapplication for Visitation Can Not Be Conditioned on Counseling or Treatment
WITNESS DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT A LINEUP, SAYING ONLY SHE WAS ‘LEANING TOWARD’ CHOOSING THE DEFENDANT, THAT TESTIMONY WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER CPL 60.25; PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION HARSHLY CRITICIZED (SECOND DEPT).
VAGUE, CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS A DA WHO HAD WORKED ON DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING (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

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...