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.