Per Curiam.

When election irregularities render a determination of rightful nomination impossible, a new election should be tailored to address the specific impact of the irregularities, respecting the voters’ choices where possible.

Summary

In a Democratic primary election for three councilman-at-large positions in Buffalo, candidate Doherty, who received the fourth-highest number of votes, sought a new primary election due to irregularities. The court found over 1,000 irregular voters in three city council districts. The lower court ordered a new primary for the third nomination in those districts only. The appellate court expanded this to a city-wide election involving all candidates. The Court of Appeals held that the new election should only involve candidates Doherty and Bellamy, the two closest contenders for the third nomination, and that the election should be held city-wide.

Facts

In the September 8, 1977, Democratic primary in Buffalo, seven candidates competed for three councilman-at-large nominations. The official count showed Arthur and Okoniewski with the most votes, followed by Bellamy and Doherty. Doherty, the fourth-highest vote-getter, challenged the election, alleging irregularities.

Procedural History

Doherty initiated proceedings in Special Term, seeking a new primary election. Special Term found irregularities but dismissed the petition concerning candidates whose positions wouldn’t be affected. It ordered a new primary for the third nomination, limited to three districts. The Appellate Division modified the order, mandating a city-wide election with all seven candidates. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the new primary election ordered due to irregularities should include all candidates or only those whose relative positions were potentially affected by the irregularities.
2. Whether the new primary election should be restricted to the districts where the irregularities occurred or be held city-wide.

Holding

1. No, because the irregularities did not affect the outcome for the top two vote-getters or the bottom three. The new election should only include Doherty and Bellamy who were contending for the third position.
2. The new primary should be city-wide because the nomination is city-wide in scope.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Election Law Section 330(2) allows a new election only when irregularities make it impossible to determine the rightful nominees. Because the irregularities didn’t impact the top two candidates’ positions, their victory should be respected. Similarly, the irregularities had no possibility of impacting the bottom three candidates. The court applied the principle from Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 598, stating that there was no “likelihood that the questioned votes produced or could produce a change in the result” as to Arthur and Okoniewski. Citing Matter of Monkarsh v Kurtz (44 Ad2d 700), the court emphasized tailoring the remedy to the specific problem. The court determined that because the nomination was city-wide, the new primary should encompass the same area. Furthermore, because of the time elapsed, the electorate could have changed, necessitating a city-wide vote. The court reinstated the Special Term’s order regarding the top two candidates and modified the order regarding the third nomination to include only Doherty and Bellamy, and made it a city-wide election.