Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Frank A. SODA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paula M. BANKS DAHLKE, Candidate, Scott P. Kiedrowski and Nancy L. Smith, as Commissioners of Elections and Constituting the Niagara County Board of Elections, Respondents-Respondents.
Petitioner, Chairman of the Niagara County Democratic Party Committee, appeals from an order dismissing his petition pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 seeking to invalidate the Independence Party designation of respondent Paula M. Banks Dahlke, a candidate in the Independence Party primary election for the New York State Assembly, 138th District to be held September 14, 2004. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner lacked standing to commence the proceeding under Election Law § 16-102(1). We affirm.
Section 16-102(1) specifies the persons who may commence a proceeding pursuant to that statute. Its plain language directs that a “chairman of a party committee” may not bring a proceeding to invalidate a designation (id.). That petitioner purports to have commenced this proceeding in his individual capacity is of no moment (see id.; Matter of Crawley v. Board of Elections of County of Rensselaer, 218 A.D.2d 914, 915, 630 N.Y.S.2d 601, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 704, 631 N.Y.S.2d 608, 655 N.E.2d 705; Matter of Davis v. Dutchess County Bd. of Elections, 153 A.D.2d 716, 717-718, 544 N.Y.S.2d 683). Petitioner's contention that the chairman of a county committee of a party may bring a proceeding to challenge a designation in an election for state office finds no support in the language of section 16-102 (see e.g. Matter of Maltese v. Anderson, 264 A.D.2d 457, 694 N.Y.S.2d 141; Matter of Grogan v. Conservative Party of N.Y. State, 77 A.D.2d 736, 736-737, 431 N.Y.S.2d 155).
In any event, petitioner was only able to establish that at most two additional signatures should be invalidated. That would leave 75 valid signatures, which is one more than needed for a valid petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: August 18, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)