Matter of Johnson v. New York State Board of Elections, 21 N.Y.2d 144 (1967)

In election law proceedings, a cross-motion challenging the validity of a nominating petition is permissible if it substantially complies with the requirements of Election Law § 335, is timely, and all necessary parties are present.

Summary

This case addresses whether a cross-motion can be used to challenge the validity of a nominating petition in an election law proceeding. The Court of Appeals held that the appellant’s cross-motion, filed before the Board of Elections acted on the petition and with all necessary parties present, constituted substantial compliance with Election Law § 335. The court emphasized that the cross-motion was timely and procedurally sufficient because it was served on the attorney in the pending proceeding. The dissent argued that the Election Law does not permit a counterclaim or cross motion in the absence of a court order, making the cross motion invalid.

Facts

An action was commenced to validate a nominating petition. The appellant and the Suffolk County Board of Elections were named as respondents. The Suffolk County Board of Elections initially accepted the nominating petition as valid. Subsequently, the appellant served an answer containing a counterclaim against the petitioner and a cross claim against the Board of Elections, seeking to invalidate the nominating petition. This was done without obtaining permission from the court.

Procedural History

The case originated in the Supreme Court. The appellant’s cross-motion to invalidate the petition was considered. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s order, holding that the cross-motion was a substantial compliance with the Election Law.

Issue(s)

Whether, in a proceeding to validate a nominating petition under the Election Law, a respondent may assert a cross-motion to invalidate the same petition without express permission from the court, thereby complying with the procedural requirements of Section 335 of the Election Law.

Holding

Yes, because the appellant’s cross-motion substantially complied with the requirements of Election Law § 335 as to form and timeliness of assertion. The assertion was served and filed before the time for commencing a proceeding had expired and before the Board of Elections acted on the petition; all necessary parties were present, and service on their attorney was procedurally sufficient.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s cross-motion, filed in a proceeding already pending, served as substantial compliance with Election Law § 335. The crucial factors were that the cross-motion was timely (filed before the Board of Elections’ action), and all necessary parties, as determined by the initial court order, were already involved in the proceeding. The Court found that serving the cross-application on the attorney representing the parties in the pending proceeding satisfied procedural requirements. The dissent argued that sections 330 and 335 of the Election Law provide specific and exclusive authority for validation or invalidation proceedings, and that these sections do not permit a counterclaim or cross motion without an explicit court order. The dissent emphasized the specific requirements of section 335, including commencing an action by verified petition upon an order to show cause. The dissent noted that because the Board of Elections initially accepted the petition, the validation proceeding became moot, and the appellant’s subsequent cross-claim, made without court permission, lacked statutory authority. The dissent highlighted that section 335, which controlled the proceedings, expressly prescribed the exclusive procedure that the appellant failed to follow.