STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT
PHILLP LEBER, TERRIE ROSENBLUM,
NANCY E.K. SCHAEF,

ULSTER COUNTY

Petitioners-Obj ectors,

-against-

Decision & Order

Index No.: 15-2244

FREDRICK RASMUSSEN III,

Respondent-C andidate,
-against-

VICTOR WORK and THOMAS F. TURCO,

Commissioners constituting the Ulster County
Board of Elections
Respondents.
Supreme Court, Ulster County
Motion Return Date: August 4,2015
RII No. 55-15-01256

Present: Christopher E. Cahill, JSC

Appearances:

Harris Beach PLLC

Co-Counsel for Petitioners-Obj ectors
333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 901
Uniondale, New York 11553
By: Jared Kasschau, Esq.
Wapner, Koplovitz & Futerfas, PLLC
Co-Counsel for Petitioners-Obj ectors
PO Box 3268
Kingston, New York 12402
By: Joshua Koplovitz, Esq.
Rod Futerfas, Esq.

Christopher Burns, Esq.

Attorney for Respondent-Candidate
369 Washington Avenue
Kingston, New York 12401
Beatrice Havranek, Esq.
Ulster County Attomey
Attomey for Respondents
PO Box 1800
Kingston, New York 12402
By: Clinton G. Johnson, Esq.

Cahill, J.:

In this proceeding brought pursuant to various provisions of Article 16 ofthe Election

Law, the petitioners-objectors seek to annul the petition designating Fredrick Rasmussen

III

as a Working Families Party candidate for the office of County Executive of Ulster County

in the September 10, 2015 primary election.

By Order dated July 30,2015, this Court directed the Ulster County Board of
Elections to rule on the petitioners-objectors' specific objections to Mr. Rasmussen,s
designating petition by 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2015. The Commissioners did, in fact, rule on
the objections, but several of their rulings were split decisions which left unresolved whether

Mr. Rasmussen's designating petition contains the requisite (and stipulated) 32 valid
signatures in order to appear on the ballot in the September 10, 2015 Working Families Party

primary.

Accordingly, this Court conducted a hearing on August 4,2015 to determine the

validity of the 38 signatures which remained after the Commissioners had ruled several
others invalid by mutual consent.

After hearing what amounted to the oral argument of the attomeys (neither attomey
called any witnesses to testiff, and the admission of five Court exhibits was stipulated to),
the Court concludes as follows.

First, respondent-candidate's attomey conceded that petitioners-objectors were correct

inassertingthatfive(5)signatures(Page4, line3;Page6, line l;Page6, line2;Page6, line

5; Page 8, line 4) had to be declared invalid because the five (5) signatories had previously
signed the designating petition of incumbent County Executive Michael Hein as a candidate

for the Working Families Party nomination for County Executive in the September primary
(see Election Law $ 6-134

[3]; Ehrlich v Biamonte,65 AD2d990 [2d Dept 2009]).

Second, with regard to petitioners-objectors' argument that seven (7) signatures (Page

4, lines 2 and 4; Page 5, line 1; Page 6, lines 3 and 4; Page 14, lines 2 and 4) must be

invalidated because the subscribing witness to these signatures, Mr. Rasmussen himself, had

previously signed the Independence Party designating petition of Elizabeth Bemardo for

UlsterCountyExecutive,theCourtagrees. ElectionLaw$6-132(3)requiresthatthe
Statement of Witness must be given by "a duly qualified voter of the state qualified to sign
the petition." Based on Election Law $ 6-134 (3), however, Mr. Rasmussen was not

qualified to sign the petition because he had already signed the Bemardo Independence Party

petition. Therefore, he was not qualified to complete a Statement of Witness, and the seven
(7) signatures at issue (Ms. Mcluckie's signature having already been invalidated as
discussed above) must be invalidated.

Next, as to petitioners-obj ectors' contention that the signature contained on Page 9,

line 3 is also invalid, the court agrees. while the line contains the voter's signature, the
street name and town name, it does not contain a number for the address. This omission has
been held to be a fatal defect as the requirements of Election Law 6-130 which includes the

complete residence of the signatory must be strictly complied with (Stoppenbush v Sweeney,
98 NY2d

a3l

Q0021; Matter of DiSanzo v Addabo,76 AD3d655l2dDept 20101).

Proceeding to Page 12, petitioners-objectors contend that all four (4) signatures are

invalid because the information below the subscribing witness's signature which requires the
subscribing witness to

identif

the town or city where he or she resides has been left blank

and the witness's residence address (16 Center Street, Phoenicia,

Ny

12464) does not

identifu a town in Ulster county. The court disagrees. As recently as August 2ol4,the
Third Department has held that this omission is not fatal to the validity of the signature
where, as here, the complete residence address ofthe subscribing witness appears elsewhere
on the same page of the petition and where, as here, there is no evidence of fraud or that the

subscribing witness did not live at the address provided (vanSavage v Jones, 120 AD3d gg7

[2014]). In reaching this conclusion, the Court also rejects the petitioners-objectors'
contention that 1 6 Center Street, Phoenicia,

NY

12464 does not

identiff a town in Ulster

County. Phoenicia is located within the Town of Shandaken. VanSavage also requires the
denial ofpetitioners-objectors' objections to page 14.
Proceeding to page

l6 which contain four (4)

signatures, the attorneys agreed during

oral argument that at the most only two (2) signatures could be valid as according to the
Statement of Witness, only two (2) signatures were witnessed. Again, as with Pages 4, 5, 6

and 14, the two (2) signatures are challenged because the witness identification section does
not specif) a town or city as required by Election Law 6-132. Pursuant to VanSavage
(supra), however, this challenge must be denied. As to the second objection that the two (2)
signatures must be invalidated because the subscribing witnesses failed to place the correct
number of signatures (4) in the designated space, the petition presented no statutory or case

law to support this claim. Accordingly, this objection must be denied.

Finally, as to Page 19, the Court rejects petitioners-objectors' argument and agrees
with respondent-candidate that*7ll8l20l5," the date written to the left of the signature, is
obviously a mistake as the petition itself was filed with the Board of Elections on July 9,
2015,and,therefore, the voter could obviously not have signed it later. Accordingly, that
signature is valid.

To summarize, as this Court, based on the foregoing, has determined that the

designating petition of Mr. Rasmussen contains only 25 valid signatures, the petition

brought pursuant to Article

l6 of the Election Law

must be granted in all respects, without

costs.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the petition is granted in all respects, without costs.

This shall constitute the decision and order ofthe Court. The original decision and order and

all other papers are being delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk for transmission to the Ulster County
Clerk for

filing. The signing ofthis decision

and order shall not constitute entry or

filing under

CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule regarding notice

of

entry.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Kingston. New York
August 5,2015

Papers considered: Order to Show Cause dated July 17 ,2015, Koplovitz Affirmation dated July 16,
2015, Verified Petition dated July 16,2015 and annexed exhibits A-B; Courr Exhibits l-5.