Green v. DiNapoli, 97 N.Y.2d 43 (2001)
A candidate should not be penalized for errors or omissions made by the Board of Elections in the filing process when the candidate has taken reasonable steps to comply with election law filing requirements.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of a candidate’s nominating petition when the Board of Elections failed to properly endorse the filing with the date and time of receipt, as required by Election Law § 6-144. DiNapoli, a candidate, timely submitted his certificate of acceptance to the Board of Elections, but the Board failed to time-stamp it. The court held that the lack of endorsement, due to the Board’s oversight, did not constitute a fatal defect because the candidate had fulfilled his responsibility by delivering the document on time.
Facts
DiNapoli was nominated as a candidate of the Independence Party for Nassau County Executive. He was required to file his certificate of acceptance with the Board of Elections by July 16, 2001. He presented the certificate to an official at the Board of Elections shortly after 9:30 a.m. on July 16, meeting the deadline. The Board of Elections did not endorse the certificate with the day, hour, or minute of receipt at that time, though a separate book entry indicating timely receipt was made. The Board official intended to time-stamp the certificate later but failed to do so.
Procedural History
Green brought a proceeding to invalidate DiNapoli’s designating petition. Supreme Court rejected Green’s challenge, finding the filing valid. The Appellate Division reversed, invalidating DiNapoli’s petition, holding that strict compliance with the statute was required and the lack of endorsement was a fatal defect. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the Board of Elections to properly endorse a certificate of acceptance with the time of filing, as required by Election Law § 6-144, constitutes a fatal defect that invalidates the candidate’s petition, when the candidate timely submitted the document.
Holding
No, because in the circumstances presented, DiNapoli satisfied the filing requirement of Election Law § 6-144 and the lack of an endorsement due to the Board’s oversight does not constitute a fatal defect.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the responsibility for endorsing the document with the time of filing rests with the Board of Elections, not the candidate. Penalizing the candidate for the Board’s error would be unfair, especially when the candidate took the necessary steps to ensure timely filing. The court emphasized that DiNapoli delivered the certificate early in the day to the appropriate Board employee. Election Law § 6-144 states that “All such petitions and certificates shall at the time of filing thereof be endorsed by such officer or board with the day, hour and minute of such filing…”. The Court held that the key issue was that the certificate was delivered to the appropriate Board employee within the prescribed timeframe. The court’s decision reflects a practical approach, acknowledging that candidates should not be prejudiced by administrative errors outside their control. The Court focused on the fact that the candidate had acted diligently and within the requirements of the law, and the error was solely attributable to the Board of Elections. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.