Opinion
No. 2024-03317 Index Nos. 286/24 606633/24
05-08-2024
In the Matter of Gian A. Jones, etc., appellant, v. Kathryn Grande De Santis, et al., respondents-respondents, et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Judy Cataldo, et al., petitioners-respondents, v. Gian A. Jones, appellant, et al., respondents. (Proceeding No. 2)
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LARA J. GENOVESI, LILLIAN WAN, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Gian A. Jones as a candidate in a primary election to be held on June 25, 2024, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 4th Congressional District, and a related proceeding, among other things, to invalidate that designating petition, Gian A. Jones appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Erica L. Prager, J.), entered May 1, 2024. The final order, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition, granted the petition, among other things, to invalidate the designating petition, and directed the Nassau County Board of Elections not to place Gian A. Jones's name on the ballot for the primary election to be held on June 25, 2024, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 4th Congressional District.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Gian A. Jones filed a petition with the Nassau County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board), designating himself as a candidate in a primary election to be held on June 25, 2024, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 4th Congressional District. Kathryn Grande De Santis, Lorraine Attias, Jacob Norman Scheiner, Judy Cataldo, and Kelly J. Johnson (hereinafter collectively the objectors) filed general objections to Jones's designating petition and, thereafter, specifications of objections. After a hearing, the Board determined that there was an insufficient number of valid signatures to meet the threshold required to qualify as a candidate for that office.
Jones commenced a proceeding against, among others, the objectors and the Board, inter alia, to validate his designating petition. De Santis, Scheiner, Cataldo, and Johnson (hereinafter collectively the invalidation petitioners) also commenced a proceeding, among other things, to invalidate Jones's designating petition. In a final order entered May 1, 2024, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate Jones's designating petition (hereinafter the validation petition), granted the petition, among other things, to invalidate the designating petition (hereinafter the invalidation petition), and directed the Board not to place Jones's name on the ballot for the primary election to be held on June 25, 2024, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Representative in Congress from the 4th Congressional District. Jones appeals.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the specifications of objections substantially complied with the requirements of Election Law § 6-154(3)(a)(ii). Election Law § 6-154(3)(a) provides that specifications of objections must "substantially comply" with the requirements of that provision, including subparagraph (ii), which states that "the total number of signatures objected to shall be set forth and all objections relating to a single signature line should be grouped together." Here, while the specifications of objections identified the total number of valid signatures, rather than the total number of signatures objected to, the objectors attached to the specifications of objections a spreadsheet that detailed the signatures to which they objected. Thus, based on these submissions, the objectors provided "'all the information necessary to identify clearly the [contested signatures] involved'" (Matter of Rimkus v Rogers, 220 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, quoting Matter of Felsen v Scaringe, 54 N.Y.2d 932, 934; see Matter of Brotherton v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 33 A.D.3d 944, 945).
Contrary to Jones's contention, the invalidation petitioners had standing pursuant to Election Law § 16-102(1) to commence an invalidation proceeding challenging Jones's designating petition because they had filed objections to the designating petition (cf. Matter of Auerbach v Suffolk County Comm. of the Conservative Party, 171 A.D.3d 731, 733; Matter of Axelrod v Reda, 120 A.D.3d 671, 671-672).
Jones was required to submit 1,250 valid signatures with his designating petition (see Election Law § 6-136[2][g]). The Board determined that Jones submitted 202 valid signatures, and Jones and the objectors thereafter stipulated that the findings of the Board were "uncontroverted." Thus, the number of valid signatures on Jones's designating petition was insufficient to meet the requirements of Election Law § 6-136(2)(g) (see Matter of Council v Zapata, 183 A.D.3d 678, 682; Matter of Avella v Johnson, 142 A.D.3d 1111, 1113; Matter of Lord v New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 624).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the invalidation petition and denied the validation petition.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, GENOVESI, WAN and LOVE, JJ., concur.