You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING...
,

THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined that the defendant Town of Newburgh’s motion to dismiss the complaint alleging a violation of the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) was properly denied. The so-called “safe harbor” provision of the NYVRA extends the time allowed for a town to address an alleged violation for 90 days. Here the Second Department held that the actions taken by the town were not sufficient to trigger the 90-day extension:

In a case of first impression, the central issue stated broadly is whether the contents of a resolution passed by a political subdivision pursuant to the New York Voting Rights Act (see Election Law § 17-206[7][b]), in which the political subdivision purported to affirm its intent to enact and implement a remedy to a potential voting rights violation, were sufficient to trigger the 90-day safe harbor provision of that statute. * * *

On January 26, 2024, a law firm representing the plaintiffs sent the Town a NYVRA notification letter, alleging that the Town’s use of an at-large method for electing the members of the Town Board violated the NYVRA by diluting the votes of Hispanic and African-American voters. * * *

… [T]he defendants’ interpretation of the NYVRA seems to prioritize prolonging the process, potentially to strategize their position, over the underlying intent and purpose of the statute. They interpret the NYVRA as requiring a political subdivision to do nothing more than pass a resolution reciting some of the language from the statute after spending 50 days deciding whether it is worthwhile to do so. Then, after passage of a contentless resolution that commits a political subdivision to do nothing unless it unilaterally decides that a NYVRA violation “may” exist, a political subdivision enjoys a 90-day immunity from suit, regardless of whether it does anything further and even when it has conclusively decided to take no further action. These positions are irreconcilable with both the text and the purpose of the NYVRA. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants failed to satisfy the safe harbor provision of Election Law § 17-206(7) … . Clarke v Town of Newburgh, 2025 NY Slip Op 00517, Second Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the criteria for a 90-day “safe harbor” extension to allow a town to address a complaint by citizens alleging violation of the New York Voting Rights Act.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED WHEEL STOP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT).
Executor’s Motion to Be Substituted for Decedent in Negligence Action Too Late
REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AT TRIAL (BECAUSE PETITIONER PLED GUILTY) SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; NON-TESTIFYING WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL; REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS INVOLVED, PETITIONER DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FACTUAL SHOWING OF A PARTICULARIZED NEED FOR DISCLOSURE.
MOTION TO STRIKE SCHOOL’S ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY DENIED, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY ANOTHER STUDENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
No Article 78 Review Where Petitioner Defaulted
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF THE STATUTE... HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE...