You are here: / / CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES TO SIGNATURES...

CANDIDATE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES TO SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSCRIBING WITNESS HAD TEMPORARILY MOVED OUT OF THE RESIDENCE DESCRIBED IN THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS SHE INTENDED TO RETURN, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the designating petition should not have been invalidated on the basis of challenged signatures and the residence of the subscribing witness. The candidate (Brezler) was not given the opportunity to respond to the challenged signatures and, although the subscribing witness was not residing at the stated address, she had moved out only temporarily due to construction:

“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 respondent was given adequate notice of which signatures on his or her designating petition are being challenged and the grounds thereof” … . Here, Brezler was not given notice, until the hearing on the invalidation petition was underway, that the petitioners were challenging numerous signatures on the ground that they did not match those signatories’ signatures on their buff cards and that the Supreme Court would be comparing the majority of the challenged signatures to those voters’ buff cards to determine whether the signatures on the designating petition matched those on the buff cards. Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, their specifications of objections filed with the Westchester County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board) and incorporated by reference into the invalidation petition did not provide notice of this basis for challenging the signatures. …

A subscribing witness is required to include, in the Statement of Witness, his or her residence address (see Election Law § 6-132[2]). This requirement “protects the integrity of the nominating process by assuring that a subscribing witness is subject to subpoena in a proceeding challenging the petition” … . The Election Law defines the term “residence” as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return” (Election Law § 1-104[22] …). The “crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence without any aura of sham'” … . Matter of Walfish v Brezler, 2019 NY Slip Op 04179, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

You might also like
VIOLATION OF SANDOVAL RULING REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THE IMPROPER QUESTIONS.
DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS TRAVELLING TOO FAST AND WHETHER HE KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DAMAGES VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE AS INADEQUATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS DEFENDANT STIPULATES TO INCREASED AWARDS FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT). ​
ROBBERY CONVICTION UNSUPPORTED BY PROOF OF INTENT TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE OWNER OF PROPERTY; HEARING NECESSARY TO ASSESS DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENTS; PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PUTATIVE FATHER’S REQUEST FOR A DNA PATERNITY TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT CONCERT HALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED AFTER BEING PUSHED INTO A MOSH PIT, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK AND WHETHER THE CONCERT HALL WAS NEGLIGENT.
SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF AFTER SURGERY RESULTING IN MEMORY LOSS WAS... IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND RETENTION CASE, THE MEDICAL RECORDS...