You are here: / / THE VOTERS WHOSE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE CHALLENGED ON RESIDENCY GROUNDS...
,

THE VOTERS WHOSE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE CHALLENGED ON RESIDENCY GROUNDS ARE NECESSARY PARTIES WHO WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROCEEDING; THE ELECTION LAW PROCEDURES FOR CHALLENGING THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS WERE NOT FOLLOWED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the voters whose absentee ballots were unsuccessfully challenged on the ground the voters did not meet the village-residency-requirements were necessary parties in this proceeding and the matter had to be remitted to add them and consider whether their absentee ballots are valid:

Viewing Election Law § 5-220 (2) together with Election Law § 9-209, there is no statutory authority, under the circumstances here, permitting a challenge by petitioners to the absentee ballots submitted by the challenged voters. In view of the statutory scheme, the only opportunity for an objection to be lodged during the post-election review of an absentee ballot is after such ballot has been deemed invalid following a review under Election Law § 9-209 (8) (e), which presupposes an initial review under Election Law § 9-209 (2). … [T]he improper registration of a voter is not one of the explicit grounds used to deem an absentee ballot invalid upon the initial review. Even assuming it was a ground, there is still no indication in the record that any review under Election Law § 9-209 (2) has occurred or, more importantly, that any determination under Election Law § 9-209 (8) (e) has been made here by the canvassing authority as to the invalidity of any absentee ballots and that such determination has been objected to — i.e., the statutory predicate for judicial review (see Election Law § 9-209 [8] [e]). There is likewise no explicit authority within Election Law § 9-209 permitting a court to either conduct that review or make that determination in the first instance. Matter of Hughes v Delaware County Bd. of Elections, 2023 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 6-26-23

Practice Point: When absentee ballots are challenged, the voters who submitted the ballots are necessary parties.

Practice Point: Any challenge to absentee ballots must be made in accordance with the procedures described in the Election Law, not the case here.

 

You might also like
THE STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (SDHR) ADMITTED IT HAD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE PETITIONER’S GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; REVERSING SUPREME COURT, SDHR’S “NO PROBABLE CAUSE” FINDING WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
Sidewalk Dropoff Was a Trivial Defect
A GRADUATE OF AN ANTIGUA MEDICAL SCHOOL WHO HAD PASSED THE US MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LICENSURE AS A PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).
Evidence of Loss Based Upon Interference with Property Owner’s Ability to Extract Gas by Hydrofracking Disallowed as Speculative
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND PROVIDED EACH PARTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES; IT WAS THEREFORE ERROR TO AWARD FATHER ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT.
Board’s Determination Business Was Claimant’s “Employer” Reversed
RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD 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, AN EXPERIENCED MOTOCROSS RIDER, ASSUMED THE RISK OF LOSING CONTROL... PRECEDENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ADMIT, UNDER SANDOVAL, EVIDENCE...