You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING...
,

THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined that the defendant Town of Newburgh’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) was properly denied. The so-called “safe harbor” provision of the NYVRA extends the time allowed for a town to address an alleged violation for 90 days. Here the Second Department held that the actions taken by the town were not sufficient to trigger the 90-day extension:

In a case of first impression, the central issue stated broadly is whether the contents of a resolution passed by a political subdivision pursuant to the New York Voting Rights Act (see Election Law § 17-206[7][b]), in which the political subdivision purported to affirm its intent to enact and implement a remedy to a potential voting rights violation, were sufficient to trigger the 90-day safe harbor provision of that statute. * * *

On January 26, 2024, a law firm representing the plaintiffs sent the Town a NYVRA notification letter, alleging that the Town’s use of an at-large method for electing the members of the Town Board violated the NYVRA by diluting the votes of Hispanic and African-American voters. * * *

… [T]he defendants’ interpretation of the NYVRA seems to prioritize prolonging the process, potentially to strategize their position, over the underlying intent and purpose of the statute. They interpret the NYVRA as requiring a political subdivision to do nothing more than pass a resolution reciting some of the language from the statute after spending 50 days deciding whether it is worthwhile to do so. Then, after passage of a contentless resolution that commits a political subdivision to do nothing unless it unilaterally decides that a NYVRA violation “may” exist, a political subdivision enjoys a 90-day immunity from suit, regardless of whether it does anything further and even when it has conclusively decided to take no further action. These positions are irreconcilable with both the text and the purpose of the NYVRA. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to satisfy the safe harbor provision of Election Law § 17-206(7) … . Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a 90-day “safe harbor” extension to allow a town to address a complaint by citizens alleging violation of the New York Voting Rights Act.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER, SOUGHT PARTITION AND SALE; DEFENDANT, WHOSE MOTHER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OWNED THE REMAINING 25%; UNDER THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT (UPHPA), PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT DID NOT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).
Settlement Without Insurer’s Consent.
COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER MAY HAVE REMOVED ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE REMOVAL EFFORTS EXACERBATED OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EMAIL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 2104 FOR AN OUT OF COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND A FAKE CUSTODY PETITION “FILED” BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEY; PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND A VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487 DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF THE STATUTE... HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE...