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
THERE WERE PARALLEL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM PETITIONER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF A PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE THE PATIENT WAS ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT IN THE PARALLEL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY IMPOSED AN ENHANCED SENTENCE AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR COULD NOT IMPOSE A NEW “RULE” WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL RULEMAKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
Construction of Dock Could Not Be Regulated by Town—Land Under Navigable Waters Owned by State
In-Court Stipulation Enforceable Even Though Party Not Represented by Counsel​ 
REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE A VIDEO OF THE INTERROGATION OF DEFENDANT SHOWING HIM REMAINING SILENT WHILE THE POLICE RECOUNTED THE CASE AGAINST HIM (THIRD DEPT).
THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (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...