New York Law Review

Tag: Summary Proceeding

  • Matter of Hoch v. Board of Elections, 64 N.Y.2d 582 (1985): Limits on Summary Proceedings in Election Disputes

    Matter of Hoch v. Board of Elections, 64 N.Y.2d 582 (1985)

    A court lacks jurisdiction in a summary proceeding to remove successful candidates from office or order a new election; such relief is available only in a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto.

    Summary

    Petitioners initiated a summary proceeding to invalidate a village election, remove the winning candidates, and mandate a new election. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that summary proceedings under Section 15-138 of the Election Law cannot be used to remove elected officials or order new elections. Such remedies are only available through a plenary action, specifically a quo warranto proceeding. The court clarified that Section 15-138 doesn’t expand the Supreme Court’s summary jurisdiction in election matters and reaffirmed that a plenary action is required for the requested relief.

    Facts

    Following a general village election in Port Washington North on March 20, 1984, the winning candidates filed their oaths of office and assumed their roles as Village Trustees. Dissatisfied with the election results, petitioners initiated a summary proceeding under Section 15-138 of the Election Law, seeking to invalidate the election, remove the elected trustees, and order a new election.

    Procedural History

    The case originated as a summary proceeding in the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division’s order, affirming the Supreme Court’s decision (presumably dismissing the petition), was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in a summary proceeding under Section 15-138 of the Election Law to remove successful candidates from office and order a new election in a general village election.

    Holding

    No, because Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in a summary proceeding does not extend to removing elected officials or ordering new elections; such relief requires a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the relief sought by the petitioners—removing the elected officials and ordering a new election—is beyond the scope of a summary proceeding. The court cited precedent, including Matter of Hanington v. Coveney, to support its conclusion that a plenary action in the nature of quo warranto is required to address such issues. The court emphasized that Section 15-138 of the Election Law, a recodification of prior law, was not intended to expand the Supreme Court’s summary jurisdiction over general elections. The court stated, “Section 15-138 was not intended to enlarge the summary jurisdiction of Supreme Court over general elections; it is merely a recodification of prior law which required proceedings such as this to be brought in quo warranto.” The court explicitly disapproved of any conflicting precedent, stating, “To the extent Matter of Nicholson v Blessing is to the contrary, it is not to be followed.” The decision reinforces the principle that challenges to the legitimacy of elected officials holding office must be pursued through the more comprehensive process of a plenary action, ensuring due process and a thorough examination of the issues.

  • Matter of Carney v. Suffolk County Board of Elections, 63 N.Y.2d 642 (1984): Mootness in Election Law Disputes

    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.”