You are here: / Election Law

FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined strict compliance with the Election Law required that 29 signatures on a designating petition be invalidated. The dates opposite the signatures included the day and month but not the year:

Two statutory provisions are directly relevant to the disposition of this appeal. First, Election Law § 6-130 provides that “[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Second, Election Law § 6-132(1) requires that the “day and year” be “placed opposite” the signature of each signer on a designating petition (Election Law § 6-132[1]). * * *

The requirement that the date—the “day and year”—accompany those signatures is a matter of prescribed content, not form … . “While substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” … . Matter of Avella v Johnson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06141, 2nd Dept 9-26-16

 

ELECTION LAW (FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION)/DESIGNATING PETITIONS (ELECTION LAW, FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION)

STATE SENATE CANDIDATE, WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC IN 2014, DID NOT MEET NEW YORK’S FIVE-YEAR CONTINUOUS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, THIRD DEPT REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the 3rd Department, determined the fact that petitioner (Glickman), a candidate for the state senate, had registered to vote in Washington DC in 2014 precluded him, as a matter of law, from establishing the required five-year continuous residency in New York:

… [W]e conclude that Glickman lacked the requisite intent to establish residency for the five years required by our Constitution. A person is permitted to have more than one residence, but is not permitted to have more than one electoral residence. Under the Washington, D.C. law, a “qualified elector” is defined, in part, as one who attests that he or she “[h]as maintained a residence in the District for at least 30 days preceding the next election and does not claim voting residence or right to vote in any state or territory” (DC Code §§ 1-1001.02 [2] [C]; 1-1001.07 [a] [2]). Thus, when Glickman registered to vote in Washington, D.C., he was required to attest that Washington, D.C. was his sole electoral residence and that he did not maintain voting residence in any other state. These factors clearly demonstrate that Glickman broke the chain of New York electoral residency which did not recommence until he registered to vote in New York in 2015. Thus, he cannot claim New York residency for the past five years as required by the State Constitution, and Supreme Court properly invalidated the designating petitions on that basis. Matter of Glickman v Laffin, 2016 NY Slip Op 05842, CtApp 8-23-16

ELECTION LAW (STATE SENATE CANDIDATE, WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC IN 2014, DID NOT MEET NEW YORK’S FIVE-YEAR CONTINUOUS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED)/RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT (ELECTION LAW, STATE SENATE CANDIDATE, WHO REGISTERED TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC IN 2014, DID NOT MEET NEW YORK’S FIVE-YEAR CONTINUOUS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT REVERSED)

DESPITE REGISTERING TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC, CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE MET NEW YORK’S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.

[REVERSED BY COURT OF APPEALS—SEE AUGUST 29 “JUST RELEASED’ PAGE] The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a candidate for State Senator (Glickman) met the five-year New York residency requirement, despite Glickman’s having registered to vote in Washington D.C. in 2014:

… [T]estimony presented at the hearing, which Supreme Court found credible, established that Glickman left his father’s home in Tonawanda, New York in 2007 in order to attend college and graduate school in Maryland and, eventually, moved to the Washington, D.C. area. During this time, Glickman returned to his father’s home multiple times a year. He kept personal belongings at the Tonawanda home and continued to use that mailing address for his driver’s license, credit card and bank statements, and other bills. Glickman also retained his doctor and dentist in New York during the period in question, as well as maintained his membership in a New York synagogue, where he participated in services, including being the Shofar blower in the Jewish New Year services each year since 2007. Following the purchase of a vehicle in 2013, Glickman stored that vehicle in his father’s garage during the winter months.

From October 2013 until March 2015, Glickman lived in a “community organizer’s house” in Washington, D.C., during which time he was employed on a yearly basis with a consulting firm and as a part-time high school teacher. Glickman testified that, although the better job opportunities remained in Washington, D.C., he was looking to return to New York. In March 2015, Glickman returned to his Tonawanda home and, in May 2015, he re-registered to vote there. In October 2015, Glickman moved and changed his voter registration to 207 Milburn Street in Rochester, New York, where he has signed two consecutive leases. Glickman bought furniture for his home on Milburn Street, paid utilities and had bills sent there, and changed the address on his license to that address.

Under the circumstances here, the evidence adduced regarding compliance with the five-year residency requirement demonstrates Glickman’s “legitimate, significant and continuing attachments” in order to establish New York as his residence for Election Law purposes … . Even if Glickman had registered and voted in Washington, D.C., based on how New York courts have interpreted Election Law § 1-104 (22), that, in and of itself, does not demonstrate as a matter of law that he intended to abandon his New York residence at the precise point of registering … . Because objectors failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence any “aura of sham” in Glickman’s electoral residency for the purpose of obtaining the candidacy … , the petitions should not have been invalidated. Matter of Glickman v Laffin, 2016 NY Slip Op 05841, 3rd Dept 8-18-16

ELECTION LAW (DESPITE REGISTERING TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC, CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE MET NEW YORK’S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS)/RESIDENCY (ELECTION LAW, DESPITE REGISTERING TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC, CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE MET NEW YORK’S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS)

Use of an Address to Which the Respondent Was in the Process of Moving Did Not Constitute a False Statement within the Meaning of the Election Law

In an action seeking to invalidate a nominating petition, the Fourth Department determined the respondent (a candidate for Common Council Member in Utica) did not provide a false address when she witnessed signatures on her nominating petition. Respondent was in the process of moving to the address used on the petition. Although she had spent time at the new address, the certificate of occupancy for the property had not yet been issued and she, therefore, could not yet formally reside there. The Fourth Department explained the law relevant to the use of an address where one intends to reside:

We explained in Matter of McManus v Relin (286 AD2d 855, lv denied 96 NY2d 718) that where, as here, “[t]he witness was in the process of moving from one apartment to another during the period in which signatures were being obtained and he provided his new address as a current address on . . . designating petitions signed before he actually moved,” the witness complied with Election Law § 6-132 (2). Although respondent had not yet moved to the address at the time she witnessed the signatures, the record establishes that the address was intended to be “that place where [she] maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home” (§ 1-104 [22]). “The determination of an individual’s residence is dependent upon an individual’s expressed intent and conduct …, and we conclude that the record establishes that respondent’s conduct reflects her intent that the address is her residence …, despite her inability to move in for reasons beyond her control. Thus, the witness statement using that address does not, under the circumstances of this case, constitute “a material false statement” (§ 6-132 [2]), and there is no indication of fraud … . Where an alleged impropriety “does not involve the substantive requirements of witness eligibility[,]’ [i.e., that respondent is a duly qualified voter of the state and an enrolled voter of the same political party as the voters qualified to sign the petition] and there is no implication of fraud, resort to strict construction should be avoided if it would lead to injustice in the electoral process or the public perception of it’ ” … . We therefore conclude, contrary to petitioner’s contention, that strict construction of Election Law § 6-132 (2) is not necessary with respect to respondent’s specification of the address on the witness statement. Matter of Vescera v Karp, 2015 NY Slip Op 06755, 4th Dept 9-8-15

 

,

Service by “Nailing” On the Day Before the Last Possible Day and “Mailing” on the Last Possible Day Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, affirming the 4th Department, determined that service by “nailing and mailing” the petition to invalidate a designating petition was timely. The petition was “nailed” on the day before the last possible day for service and was “mailed” on the last possible day for service:

We agree with the courts below that this proceeding was properly commenced in a timely manner. Here, there is no dispute that petitioner complied with the terms of the order to show cause by nailing the papers to the door of [respondent’s] residence on July 22, 2015 and mailing the papers to that residence by express mail on July 23. [Respondent] maintains that mailing on the last day of the statutory period was jurisdictionally defective since delivery inevitably would occur outside of the statutory period. However, where the instrument of notice has been delivered by another prescribed method within the statutory period, we have rejected such contentions concerning mailing … . Matter of Angletti v Morreale, 2015 NY Slip Op 06647, CtApp 8-26-15

 

Address Errors Rendered Designating Petition Invalid—Petitioner Not Entitled to “Opportunity to Ballot”

The Third Department determined that errors in indicating the correct address of signatories invalidated the designating petition, Because such errors are not deemed merely “technical” errors under the Election Law, the petitioner’s request for an “opportunity to ballot” was properly denied:

Pursuant to Election Law § 6-130, “[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Strict compliance with Election Law § 6-130 is mandated, as its requirements constitute “a matter of substance and not of form”… . * * *

… [T]he discretional remedy of an opportunity to ballot should be granted “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” … . Here, we find that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the opportunity to ballot remedy is not appropriate in light of the fact that the defects at issue have been held to be substantive and not technical in nature … . Matter of Canary v New York State Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 06638, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

,

Fact that Notary Public Did Not Administer an Oath to the Signatories on the Designating Petition Did Not Invalidate the Petition

The Third Department determined the signatures on the candidate-designating petition were valid, despite the respondent’s, Sira’s, admission that no oath was administered to the signatories which Sira signed as a notary public. The court noted that, under the Election Law, Sira could have merely witnessed the signatures, without signing as a notary public. Because there was no evidence the signatures were fraudulent in any way, the petition was deemed valid:

“A designating petition will be invalidated if the challenger shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the entire petition is permeated with fraud or that the candidate participated in, or can be charged with knowledge of, fraudulent activity” … . Here, although Sira herself attested to 307 signatures on her designating petition as a notary public, which included an affirmation that the signatories had sworn that their statements were true, she admitted at the hearing that she had not administered an oath to the signatories or obtained a statement as to the truth of the matter to which they subscribed as required by Election Law § 6-132 (3) … . Sira concedes that those 307 signatures are therefore invalid. However, we are unconvinced that Sira’s actions amounted to fraud warranting invalidation of the entire designating petition. Notably, as a registered member of the Republican Party living in Fulton County, Sira was not required to attest to the signatures on her petition as a notary public; rather, Sira could have attested as a witness to the signatures, requiring only an affirmation that the signatories identified themselves as the individuals who signed the petition and that they signed the petition in the presence of the witness (see Election Law § 6-132 [2]). Significantly, there is no evidence that Sira did not witness the signatures she attested to or that the signatures were not authentic. Thus, in our view, it has not been established by clear and convincing evidence that, under these circumstances, invalidation of Sira’s entire designating petition is warranted on this basis… . Matter of Vincent v Sira, 2015 NY Slip Op 06636, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

,

Fraud Does Not Require Proof of a “Nefarious Motive”—Fact that Respondent Knew that the Spouses of Three Signatories Signed the Petition on the Signatories’ Behalf Invalidated the Petition, Despite the Fact that There Were a Sufficient Number of Valid Signatures

The Third Department invalidated the designating petition because the respondent, Hammond, admitted he witnessed the signatures of the three people who were the spouses of the person purportedly signing the petition.  The petition included 38 signatures, 30 more than the eight required to receive the party designation. Hammond thought having the three spouses sign was proper. The court noted that the signatures were fraudulent, despite the absence of an intent to defraud, and Hammond’s knowledge of the fraud required invalidation:

A court will invalidate a designating petition where the challenger establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the entire petition is permeated with fraud or that the candidate participated in, or can be charged with knowledge of, fraudulent activity” … . Where a candidate is involved in the fraud, the challenger need not show that the fraud permeated the entire petition …, and “the petition may be invalidated even if it contains a sufficient number of valid signatures independent of those fraudulently procured” … . * * *

Fraud … does not require proof of a “nefarious motive” … . Inasmuch as Hammond participated in the fraud, and regardless of the fact that the designating petition contained a sufficient number of signatures independent of the three signatures that were fraudulently obtained, we invalidate respondents’ designating petition and strike their names from the ballot … . Matter of Mattice v Hammond, 2015 NY Slip Op 06637, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

,

Failure to Administer Oath to Two Signatories Invalidated Petition—When Oath Required Under the Election Law Explained

The Third Department determined that the failure to administer the oath required by the Election Law to two signatories invalidated the designating petition. The court explained when the oath is required under the Election Law, and when it is sufficient to merely witness a signature:

The Election Law provides a much simpler process for a local party member to obtain petition support for a potential candidate than for an individual of either another political party or from outside the relevant political subdivision. A local party member may obtain petition signatures and affirm with a simple statement that the signatories “subscribed the same in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself or herself to be the individual who signed this sheet” (Election Law § 6-132 [2]). Where the petition is obtained by an individual other than a statutorily authorized local party member, however, the petition may be approved by a notary public or commissioner of deeds, but it is further required that each individual signatory be “duly sworn” (Election Law § 6-132 [3]).

Here, [respondent] was gathering signatures on multiple party lines, and at issue are three lines in which she was not a duly registered party member. At the hearing, in addition to testimony from signatories that no oath or affirmation as to the truth of their statements was elicited prior to signing the petitions, [respondent] herself clearly acknowledged in her testimony that she had neither administered an oath to any signatory on the challenged petitions, nor had she asked any of them to swear or affirm to tell the truth before signing. This is contrary to her attestation as a commissioner of deeds, which appears on the face of each sheet of the challenged designating petitions, as required pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (3). As respondent argues, case law has established that not all of the formalities of an oath need be observed … . Nonetheless, we are constrained to find that the evidence did not support a finding of substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. Accordingly, the signatures collected by [respondent] are rendered invalid… . Matter of Mertz v Bradshaw, 2015 NY Slip Op 06639, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

,

Failure to Meet One-Year Residency Requirement Invalidated Designating Petition

The Third Department affirmed the invalidation of petitioner’s designating petition because petitioner had not lived in the relevant district for one year, as required by the Albany County Charter. The court held the residency requirement did not violate due process:

… [B]y conceding that the address listed on his designating petition is outside the 9th Legislative District and that he did not, in fact, live in that district, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he satisfied the residency requirements and, consequently, did not meet his burden of demonstrating the validity of his designating petition … .

… [W]e find that the one-year durational residency requirement imposes a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction on prospective candidates and voters that is supported by a rational basis … . Matter of Scavo v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 2015 NY Slip Op 06640, 3rd Dept 8-20-15

 

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