From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abinanti v. Duffy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 20, 2014
120 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-08-20

In the Matter of Thomas J. ABINANTI, appellant, v. Mike DUFFY, respondent-respondent, et al., respondents.


In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Mike Duffy as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2014, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 92nd Assembly District, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), dated August 1, 2014, as, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner asserts that the designating petition is invalid on the ground that it does not include the full name of the candidate, Michael K. Duffy. However, under the circumstances of this case, the petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that the use of the name “Mike Duffy” was intended to mislead or confuse potential signatories, or did, in fact, mislead or tend to lead to misidentification or confusion on the part of potential signatories as to the candidate's identity ( see Ferris v. Sadowski, 45 N.Y.2d 815, 409 N.Y.S.2d 133, 381 N.E.2d 339). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition and dismissed the proceeding ( see Matter of Mannarino v. Goodbee, 109 A.D.3d 683, 685, 970 N.Y.S.2d 835; Matter of Eisenberg v. Strasser, 307 A.D.2d 1053, 1054, 763 N.Y.S.2d 782, affd.100 N.Y.2d 590, 769 N.Y.S.2d 150, 801 N.E.2d 370; Matter of Petersen v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 218 A.D.2d 776, 630 N.Y.S.2d 580).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contention, which was raised as an alternative ground for affirmance ( see Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241; Matter of MacKay v. Johnson, 54 A.D.3d 428, 430, 863 N.Y.S.2d 85). SKELOS, J.P., BALKIN, AUSTIN, SGROI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Abinanti v. Duffy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 20, 2014
120 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Abinanti v. Duffy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Thomas J. ABINANTI, appellant, v. Mike DUFFY…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2014

Citations

120 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
120 A.D.3d 668
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 5863

Citing Cases

Yacubich v. Suffolk Cnty. Bd. of Elections

). Candidates are permitted to run for office using a familiar name or nickname (seeMatter of Gumbs v. Board…

In re S. Richmond Bluebelt, Phase 3

Contrary to the claimant's contention, the continuous wrong doctrine is not applicable to its de facto taking…