IN RE: Melanie RIMKUS (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking, inter alia, to validate her independent nominating petition (petition) to place her on the general election ballot as a candidate for the office of Councilmember of the Town of Alden. The petition was invalidated by respondent Erie County Board of Elections (Board), which determined in response to objections filed by respondent Colleen Rogers and after a hearing that the petition did not contain the 205 valid signatures required to place petitioner on the ballot for the office. Petitioner appeals from an order that, inter alia, dismissed her petition.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the court properly determined that Rogers's specification of objections substantially complied with the requirements of Election Law § 6-154 (3) (a) (i). Although Rogers failed to specify the volume number for each of her individual objections, we note that she provided the page number and line number for each objection, thus providing the Board and petitioner with “all the information necessary to identify clearly the [contested signatures] involved” (Matter of Felsen v. Scaringe, 54 N.Y.2d 932, 934, 445 N.Y.S.2d 137, 429 N.E.2d 815 [1981], rearg denied 54 N.Y.2d 1026, 446 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 430 N.E.2d 1321 [1981]). Indeed, inasmuch as petitioner filed only a single volume, the methodology used by Rogers was susceptible of no other interpretation (see Matter of Scheidlinger v. Power, 208 Misc. 717, 719, 144 N.Y.S.2d 785 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 1955], affd 286 App. Div. 958, 144 N.Y.S.2d 422 [1st Dept. 1955]). We note, in addition, that petitioner failed to allege that any of the contested signatures were valid (see Matter of Hennessy v. Oneida County Bd. of Elections, 217 A.D.3d 1452, 1453, 190 N.Y.S.3d 538 [4th Dept. 2023]; Matter of Boniello v. Niagara County Bd. of Elections, 131 A.D.3d 806, 807, 15 N.Y.S.3d 530 [4th Dept. 2015]).

Contrary to petitioner's remaining contention, the court properly declined to issue a declaration that the Board violated the Open Meetings Law (see Public Officers Law § 104). Inasmuch as “[a]n unintentional failure to fully comply with the notice provisions required by [the Open Meetings Law] shall not alone be grounds for invalidating any action taken at a meeting of a public body” (§ 107 [1]; see Matter of Save Monroe Ave., Inc. v. Town of Brighton, N.Y. Off. of the Bldg. Inspector, 217 A.D.3d 1389, 1392, 191 N.Y.S.3d 560 [4th Dept. 2023]), issuing such a declaration would have had no effect on the rights of the parties (see Thrun v. Cuomo, 112 A.D.3d 1038, 1041, 976 N.Y.S.2d 320 [3d Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 865, 2014 WL 1316287 [2014]; Mastrangelo v. Nassau County, 102 A.D.2d 814, 815, 476 N.Y.S.2d 589 [2d Dept. 1984], appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 944 [1984]; see generally Wisholek v. Douglas, 97 N.Y.2d 740, 742, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 [2002]).