You are here: / / Opportunity to Ballot Should Not Have Been Allowed—Criteria Explained...

Opportunity to Ballot Should Not Have Been Allowed—Criteria Explained

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s granting of the opportunity to ballot where the designating petition did not have the required number of valid signatures and there was no evidence of the reason(s) some of the signatures were deemed invalid (no hearing was held).  The Third Department explained the procedure for determining whether the opportunity to ballot should be granted:

“The ‘opportunity to ballot’ remedy . . . was designed to give effect to the intention manifested by qualified party members to nominate some candidate, where that intention would otherwise be thwarted by the presence of technical, but fatal defects in designating petitions, leaving the political party without a designated candidate for a given office”… .  The case law makes clear, however, that this discretionary remedy …”was not intended to be a generally available substitute for the petition process set forth in article 6 of the Election Law” … .  Accordingly, a court should grant an opportunity to ballot “only where the defects which require invalidation of a designating petition are technical in nature and do not call into serious question the existence of adequate support among eligible voters” ….  Such a determination, in turn, typically occurs following a hearing, at which the specific reasons for invalidating the affected signatures may be established … .  Notably, a challenge directed to an individual’s eligibility to sign a candidate’s designating petition in th e first instance implicates a substantive – as opposed to technical – defect … .  Matter of Roberts v Work…, 517208, 3rd Dept 8-15-13

 

You might also like
SORA Proof Burdens Explained
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE, A TORT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER PLAINTIFF’S LAND; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE DAMAGES ELEMENT OF TRESPASS (THIRD DEPT).
IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).
ELIMINATING THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF REIMBURSING RETIREES’ MEDICARE PART B PREMIUMS IS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE NEGOTIATED WITH CURRENT EMPLOYEES; PERB DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DAUGHTER’S PETITION TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN FOR HER MOTHER, WHO HAS DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER’S, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available for Purchase by New York City to Maintain the City’s Drinking-Water Watershed Was Not a Regulatory Taking
IN THIS ELECTION LAW CASE, THE SIGNATORIES’ NAMES WERE PRINTED ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION BUT WERE INSCRIBED ON THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PROOF THAT THE SIGNATORIES WHOSE NAMES WERE PRINTED WERE IN FACT THE SAME AS THOSE WHOSE SIGNATURES WERE ON THE REGISTRATION FORMS (FOURTH 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

“Technical Irregularities” Did Not Preclude Allowing Opportunity to Ba... Misspellings Did Not Render Signatures Invalid