You are here: / / DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT...

DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have invalidated two signatures on a designating petition because the candidate, Alfieri, was not given the opportunity to prepare a response to the claim the signatures were invalid. Those two signatures, combined with correcting a miscalculation of the number of signatures made by Supreme Court, gave Alfieri one more than the 1500 signatures required for a valid designating petition:

“The Supreme Court may entertain specific objections to signatures on a designating petition that were not asserted before a board of elections to the extent the [other party] was given adequate notice of which signatures on his or her designating petition are being challenged and the grounds thereof” … . Here, the invalidation petitioners served their bill of particulars raising additional objections …, prior to the commencement of the hearing on the validating and invalidating petitions. Consequently,  Alfieri had adequate notice of the invalidation petitioners’ grounds for objecting to the additional signatures identified in their bill of particulars to enable him to prepare his defense … .

With respect to the challenge of the 2 signatures that first arose during the cross-examination … , Alfieri was not given any notice that the Supreme Court would consider whether those signatures were made by the same person and then compare those signatures to the voters’ buff cards to determine whether the signatures on the designating petition matched those on the buff cards. Since the lack of notice deprived Alfieri of an opportunity to adequately prepare a response as to the validity of those 2 signatures, the court should not have invalidated those 2 signatures … . Matter of Alfieri v Bravo, 2019 NY Slip Op 04159, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Guilty Plea—Court Should Have Appointed New Counsel Before Hearing the Motion
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF A GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION POLICY DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Employment Contract Deemed Hiring “At Will”—No Fixed Duration
Some of the Requirements for the Application of Attorney Work-Product and Trial-Preparation Privileges Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A U-TURN TO PURSUE A VEHICLE AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR (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

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, COURT NOT BOUND BY PURPORTED COMMITMENT TO A PARTICULAR... NO EVIDENCE ICE ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS FORMED BEFORE THE STORM,...