Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rosenblum v. Tallman Fire District
Citations: 117 A.D.3d 1064; 986 N.Y.S.2d 582
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 28, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
A proceeding was initiated under CPLR article 78 and Election Law article 16 to contest the casting and canvassing of certain ballots in the December 10, 2013, election for Fire Commissioner of the Tallman Fire District, with the petitioner seeking certification as the duly elected commissioner. The Supreme Court of Rockland County, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's requests to prohibit the casting and canvassing of specific ballots (Exhibits 3-12) and ordered the Board of Elections to count those ballots. The court also allowed respondent Robert Doremus to contest the refusal to count additional ballots (Exhibits R and X), despite his not initiating a separate proceeding. The election results showed 153 votes for the petitioner, 155 for Doremus, and 12 void ballots. The petitioner contested the validity of certain write-in ballots for Doremus. The court found that Exhibit 3 was validly counted for Doremus, as the voter's intent was clear despite using multiple marks. Similarly, the ballots with misspellings of Doremus’s name were also counted for him, as he was the only candidate for the position. The court affirmed the election officials' decisions to count these ballots, concluding that the voters' intent was evident. The final order was upheld without costs or disbursements. Voter noncompliance with the instruction to write the candidate's "exact legal name" did not invalidate the ballots cast for Doremus. The Supreme Court's review of the voided ballots, despite Doremus challenging them for the first time at the hearing, was justified and did not warrant dismissal, as established in previous case law. Specifically, the ballot identified as exhibit R, where the voter wrote "Mr. Robert Doremus" but failed to mark an X next to his name, remained valid because the voter’s intent was clear, despite the technical violation of ballot instructions. Similarly, the ballot designated as exhibit X was deemed valid even though it only included "Doremus" with an X, as there was only one candidate with that surname, making the voter's intent unmistakable. Consequently, the Supreme Court's rulings on these ballots were upheld, and Doremus's arguments regarding exhibits 1 and 2 were unnecessary to address. Judges Rivera, Balkin, Dickerson, and Cohen concurred.