IN RE: Gregory John Fischer

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Gregory John Fischer, appellant, v. Suffolk County Board of Elections, et al., respondents.

2010-07566 (Index No. 27603/10)

Decided: August 18, 2010

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. ANITA R. FLORIO THOMAS A. DICKERSON ARIEL E. BELEN SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

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

Copied to clipboard