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.
IN RE: Gregory John Fischer, appellant, v. Suffolk County Board of Elections, et al., respondents.
Argued-August 17, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Gregory John Fischer as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 2010, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of State Senator for the 1st Senatorial District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated August 3, 2010, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that his designating petition was not timely “filed” within the meaning of Election Law § 1-106(1) (Election Law § 1-106[1]; see Matter of Thomas v New York State Bd. of Elections, 44 AD3d 1155, 1156; Matter of Montes-Amaya v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 33 AD3d 946, 947; Matter of Amo v Orange County Bd. of Elections, 286 A.D.2d 454, 454; Matter of Hogan v. Goodspeed, 196 A.D.2d 675, 676; Matter of Persichetti v. Bollatto, 109 A.D.2d 811, 811). The untimely filing of a designating petition “is a ‘fatal defect’ and the judiciary is foreclosed from fashioning any exceptions” (Matter of Amo v Orange County Bd. of Elections, 286 A.D.2d at 454, quoting Election Law § 1-106[2]; see Matter of Raimone v. Sanchez, 253 A.D.2d 506, 507).
Also contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondents Joan A. Zaniskey and Thomas F. Henry timely filed their general objections to the designating petition (see Matter of Anello v Niagra County Bd. of Elections, 43 AD3d 638, 639; Matter of Miele v. Reda, 243 A.D.2d 566, 567; Matter of Benson v. Scaringe, 84 A.D.2d 603, 604).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., FLORIO, DICKERSON, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-07566 (Index No. 27603 /10)
Decided: August 18, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)