45 N.Y.2d 804 (1978)

In special proceedings under Article 16 of the Election Law, the proceeding must be initiated with a verified petition, as an unverified petition does not meet the statutory requirements.

Summary

This case concerns a special proceeding brought under Article 16 of the Election Law. The petitioners initiated the proceeding with an order to show cause accompanied by an unverified petition. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Section 16-116 of the Election Law requires the proceeding to be “heard upon a verified petition,” the unverified petition was insufficient to institute the proceeding. The court reasoned that requiring a verified petition serves practical purposes and advances the policy behind the statute, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements in election law matters.

Facts

Petitioners, Arthur Goodman et al., commenced a special proceeding under Article 16 of the Election Law against Albert T. Hayduk et al., who constituted the Board of Elections of Westchester County, and Raymond McNamara. The proceeding was initiated via an order to show cause. The petition annexed to the order to show cause was unverified. Respondent challenged the initiation of the proceeding based on the lack of verification.

Procedural History

The petitioners sought relief in a lower court, which ruled against them. They appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The petitioners then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a special proceeding under Article 16 of the Election Law is properly commenced when the initial petition served with the order to show cause is unverified, despite Section 16-116 requiring that such proceedings be “heard upon a verified petition.”

Holding

No, because Section 16-116 of the Election Law explicitly requires that special proceedings under Article 16 be heard upon a verified petition, and allowing an unverified petition to initiate the proceeding would undermine the statute’s intent and practical application.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing the statutory requirement for a verified petition in special proceedings under Article 16 of the Election Law. The court reasoned that adherence to this requirement serves practical purposes and advances the policy behind Section 16-116. The majority opinion stated, “To find an unverified petition nonetheless acceptable to institute the special proceeding would not serve practical purposes or advance the policy behind section 16-116 of the Election Law.” By requiring verification, the statute ensures a level of certainty and accountability in election-related challenges. The dissent argued that serving a verified petition before the hearing, even if not at the commencement of the proceeding, complies with the law’s literal requirements. The dissent noted, “There is of course no express statutory requirement that the proceeding be commenced by service of a show cause order with a verified petition annexed, nor is there any authority from this court for imposing such a requirement.” However, the majority’s focus on the practical implications and policy considerations suggests a strict interpretation of the statute to maintain the integrity of election proceedings.