Matter of Carney v. Suffolk County Board of Elections, 63 N.Y.2d 642 (1984)
An appeal concerning a candidate’s placement on the ballot becomes moot when the election has already occurred and a different candidate has been certified as the winner and assumed office.
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the validity of a designating petition for a candidate running for Superintendent of Highways. The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s decision and dismissed the proceeding due to the failure to name and serve an indispensable party. However, by the time the appeal reached the Court of Appeals, the election had taken place, and another candidate had won and assumed office. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as academic, holding that it lacked jurisdiction in a summary proceeding to remove the elected official or order a new election, which would require a plenary action.
Facts
The petitioner sought to validate the designating petition of the Sewer Tax Opposition Party (STOP), naming him as a candidate for Superintendent of Highways in the Town of Babylon.
The Suffolk County Board of Elections determined that the petition was invalid.
A co-objector to the designating petition was not named or served in the validation proceeding.
After the Appellate Division’s order but before the appeal was perfected, the general election took place, and another candidate was certified as the winner and assumed the office.
Procedural History
Special Term: Denied the motion to dismiss, annulled the Board of Elections’ determination, and ordered the petitioner’s name to be placed on the ballot.
Appellate Division: Reversed the Special Term’s order and dismissed the proceeding because an indispensable party had not been named or served.
Court of Appeals: Appeal dismissed as academic.
Issue(s)
Whether an appeal in a summary proceeding to validate a designating petition is rendered moot when the election has occurred, and a different candidate has been certified as the winner and assumed the office.
Holding
Yes, because the court lacks jurisdiction in a summary proceeding to remove a duly elected official or order a new election; such relief requires a plenary action.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the case had become moot because the election had already been held, and another candidate had been certified and assumed office. The court emphasized its lack of jurisdiction in a summary proceeding under Section 16-102 of the Election Law to remove the successful candidate from office or order a new election. The proper remedy for challenging the election results after the election, if any, would be a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto. The court cited Sedita v Board of Educ., 43 NY2d 827, 828 to support the dismissal of the appeal as academic. They further referenced Matter of Corrigan v Board of Elections, 38 AD2d 825, 826, affd 30 NY2d 603, indicating that a challenge to the seated official would require a different type of legal action. The court stated, “This court has no jurisdiction in a summary proceeding such as this under section 16-102 of the Election Law to remove the successful candidate from office or order a new general election. Such relief can be granted, if at all, only in a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto.”