You are here: / / THE LOCAL LAW WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CERTAIN FELONY CONVICTIONS...
, ,

THE LOCAL LAW WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CERTAIN FELONY CONVICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED TO APPLY ONLY TO CONVICTIONS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Local Law which disqualified candidates who have certain felony convictions from running for city council and other officers should not have been interpreted to apply only to convictions after the enactment of the Local Law. Given the importance of the law, the proceeding should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and decided on an expedited schedule because of the impending primary election:

Under the circumstances presented, where plaintiffs, without good reason, waited until shortly before the upcoming June 27, 2023 Democratic primary election to bring this action seeking a determination as to the constitutional and procedural validity of Local Law 15, enacted in February 2021, and to bring this motion seeking injunctive relief barring its enforcement, on an expedited basis that would not permit meaningful review of the important issues and that necessarily would result in electoral disruption, the court should not have converted, with limited notice to the City, the motion to one for summary judgment and resolved the merits of plaintiffs’ claims on an expedited schedule. * * *

We also find that the court, in prematurely resolving the merits of plaintiffs’ challenges, erred to the extent it construed, against the statutory reading proffered by both parties in the motion court, Local Law 15 as not disqualifying candidates based on the specified felony convictions where the convictions predated the law’s enactment in February 2021. A reading of the statutory language that the law applies to any person who “has been convicted” makes clear, on its face, that the law applies to both pre- and post-enactment convictions and, as the City shows, the legislative comments entirely support that reading, as do the subsequent practices of the Board of Elections. Martinez v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 03073, First Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: The matter should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and determined on an expedited schedule because of the impending election. The Local Law which disqualifies candidates with certain felony convictions from running for local offices should not have been interpreted to apply only to convictions after the enactment of the local law.

 

You might also like
Failure to Challenge Conviction Rendered Invalid by Not Advising Defendant of the Period of Post Release Supervision [PRS] Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Termination of Teacher for Failure to Control Special-Education Class to Which He Was Assigned After an Unblemished 18-Year Career Shocked the Court’s Sense of Fairness
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PLACED DEFENDANT IN A JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM IN THIS COCAINE-SALE CASE, CRITERIA AND PURPOSE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST DEPT).
SOLICITATIONS FOR NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE MATERIALLY MISLEADING IN VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS 349, THE SOLICITATIONS IMPLIED THEY WERE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​THE EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENTS) WERE PROPERLY... DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT...