Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
IN RE: Victoria KELLY, et al., respondents, v. John O'HARA, appellant.
2022–05156 , Index 517371/22
Decided: July 12, 2022
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating John O'Hara as a candidate in a primary election to be held on August 23, 2022, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of New York State Senator for the 17th Senatorial District, in which John O'Hara filed a cross petition to validate the designating petition, John O'Hara appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated June 30, 2022. The final order granted the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition and denied the cross petition.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
John O'Hara submitted a petition designating himself as a candidate in a primary election to be held on August 23, 2022, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of New York State Senator for the 17th Senatorial District. Victoria Kelly filed general and specific objections to the designating petition, and subsequently filed a petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition. O'Hara filed a cross petition to validate the designating petition.
The Board of Elections in the City of New York (hereinafter the BOE) ultimately determined that O'Hara’s designating petition was invalid because it contained fewer than the required 850 signatures. Many of the signatures on the designating petition were ruled invalid because the signatories resided outside the 17th Senatorial District.
After a hearing on the petition, inter alia, to invalidate and the cross petition, the Supreme Court issued a final order granting the petition, inter alia, to invalidate, and denying the cross petition.
O'Hara contends that the BOE was estopped from disallowing the out-of-district signatures because it failed to publish street finders and maps in preparation for the primary election, as was its usual practice. This claim was not pleaded in O'Hara’s cross petition to validate, but was instead raised as an “affirmative defense” in his answer to the petition, inter alia, to invalidate his designating petition. That “affirmative defense” was, in actuality, a cross claim against a co-respondent. “[A] cross claim is not permitted in a special proceeding without leave of court” (Matter of O'Connor v. D'Apice, 156 A.D.2d 610, 612, 549 N.Y.S.2d 424). Since O'Hara did not seek leave to interpose his cross claim, it was not properly before the Supreme Court (see CPLR 402; Matter of Jordan v. Carter, 205 A.D.3d 857, 858, 166 N.Y.S.3d 546; Matter of Espinal v. Sosa, 153 A.D.3d 819, 61 N.Y.S.3d 566).
In any event, as the Supreme Court determined, contrary to O'Hara’s contentions, his exclusion from the ballot was mandated by law (see Election Law § 6–136), and he was not deprived of his constitutional rights (see Rivera–Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 [2d Cir.]).
The BOE's contention that this appeal must be dismissed as untimely taken has not been considered, as it is based on matter dehors the record.
IANNACCI, J.P., ROMAN, CHRISTOPHER, ZAYAS and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.