You are here: / / Failure to Provide Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petition

Failure to Provide Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petition

In reversing Supreme Court and granting the petition to invalidate a designating petition and removing the candidate from the ballot, the Second Department determined that the failure provide a cover sheet for the petition in accordance with the Election Law and regulations was fatal to the petition:

We are mindful that the provisions of Election Law § 6-134 “shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” (Election Law § 6-134[10]; see 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]) in order to avoid the disenfranchisement of voters. However, although certain “[c]over sheet deficiencies may be corrected by the filing of an amended cover sheet” …, a candidate may not “amend” a cover sheet which was never filed in the first place, as was the case here.

“The three-day cure provision for designating petitions (Election Law § 6-134[2]) is available for technical violations of the regulations” …. In the instant case, however, the candidate’s initial failure to file a cover sheet was not a mere technical defect subject to cure pursuant to Election Law § 6-134(2) … . To the contrary, the absence of a cover sheet, especially where, as here, the designating petition contained multiple volumes that were unbound, constituted a complete failure to comply with the requirements set forth in 9 NYCRR 6215.1, which may not be cured pursuant to Election Law § 6-134(2) and 9 NYCRR 6215.6 … . Such failure undermines procedural safeguards against both fraud and confusion … .  Matter of Armwood v McCloy, 2013 NY Slip Op 05654, 2nd Dept, 8-15-17

 

You might also like
PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PEDESTRIAN STRUCK WHILE LAWFULLY IN CROSSWALK ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS AN ACTION FOR “NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE” UNLESS THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES FOR DISMISSAL SPELLED OUT IN CPLR 3216 ARE MET (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NONACTIONABLE AS “TRIVIAL” IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY; IN OTHER WORDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS TOO WEAK TO MEET THE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT-PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RELEASE FROM PRE-INDICTMENT CUSTODY PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (SECOND DEPT).
PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (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

In Sex-Offense Trial, Discovery of the Victim’s Psychiatric Records Properly... Filing Petition Four Hours Late Was Fatal Defect