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
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AS TRUE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON UNSWORN INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS (THIRD DEPT). ​
UNDER THE NEW APPELLATE PRACTICE RULES FOR CROSS-APPEALS, DEFENDANTS ABANDONED THIER APPEAL BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FILE THEIR BRIEF WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF FILING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL; THE COURT OPTED TO WAIVE DEFENDANTS’ NONCOMPLIANCE AND DEEMED THE CROSS APPEAL PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service
GUILTY PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, COLLOQUY DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT OF ALL THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP (THIRD DEPT).
Court May Impliedly Vacate Note of Issue by Directing Discovery
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, NEW TRIAL GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY OUTREACH WORKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (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

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