DeCicco v. Chemung County Board of Elections

Citations: 93 N.Y.2d 1008; 697 N.Y.S.2d 245; 719 N.E.2d 526; 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 2104

Court: New York Court of Appeals; August 25, 1999; New York; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion AnalysisLead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the Appellate Division's decision to invalidate two petitions related to a candidacy for District Attorney was affirmed. The first petition, designating the individual as the Conservative Party candidate, was invalidated due to the absence of an authorization certificate from the party, as required by Election Law § 6-120(3). The second petition, an opportunity to ballot petition, was similarly invalidated because it contained the same signatures as the first petition, executed on the same date, thus violating Election Law § 6-134(3), which prohibits counting signatures from voters who have signed multiple petitions for more candidates than available positions. The court found that the opportunity to ballot implied a vote for a different candidate than the designated one, thus invalidating the signatures based on the statutory provision. The decision was unanimously concurred by the Chief Judge and all judges involved, affirming the Appellate Division's order without awarding costs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Election Law § 6-120(3) - Authorization Certificate Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The designating petition for a candidate was invalidated due to the absence of a required authorization certificate from the Conservative Party.

Reasoning: The designating petition was invalidated due to the absence of a required authorization certificate from the Conservative Party, as per Election Law § 6-120(3).

Election Law § 6-134(3) - Invalidity of Signatures on Multiple Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The opportunity to ballot petition was invalidated because all signers had also signed the designating petition on the same date, contravening the stipulation that a voter cannot sign petitions designating more candidates than positions available.

Reasoning: The Appellate Division correctly ruled that the opportunity to ballot petition was also invalid under Election Law § 6-134(3), since all signers had also signed the designating petition on the same date.