SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF DUTCHESS : CIVIL TERM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
In the Matter of the Application of MICHAEL T.
MCCORMACK, Chairman of the Dutchess County
Republican Party Committee,

DECISION
and JERRY LANDISI, THERESA HOFFMAN, ERIN
RIVERRI, JILLIAN D. PRESSI, SANDRA WASHBURN,
ANN BOHM, and KAREN JOHNSON, Objectors Aggrieved,
Petitioners,
-against-

INDEX NO.
3491/2015

DIANNE JABLONSKI, MARY HANNON WILLIAMS, RITA

LANGVA, THOMAS MICHAEL HURLEY, APRIL MARIE
FARLEY, CRAIG BRENDLI, DEBRA WINIFRED BLALOCK,
DAVID P. RAY, EMILY SVENSON, JOSEPH R. MARRINE,
JOSEPH PAUL PETITO, ELIZABETH SPINZIA, JAMES TRACY
HERRMANN, and LINDA S. FRENCH, Purported Candidates,
and ERICK HAIGHT and MARCO CAVIGLIA, Commissioners
constituting the Dutchess County Board of Elections,
Respondents,

and GREGORY PETERSON, DOUGLASS KELLNER, ANDREW SPANO

and PETER KOSINSKI, Commissioners constituting the New
York State Board of Elections,
and THE PURPORTED WOMEN'S EQUALITY PARTY, and its
purported committees, RACHEL GOLD, purported acting
chair, and KATHLEEN JOY, purported secretary,
for an order pursuant to the Election Law and Article
78 CPLR declaring invalid the respondent candidates'
purported Women's Equality Party nominations and to
Restrain the said Board of Elections from placing the
name of said candidates upon the official ballots of
the General Election.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
Dutchess County Courthouse
10 Market Street
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
September 29, 2015
(Appearances on following page.)

BEFORE:

HONORABLE PETER M. FORMAN

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

APPEARANCES:

O'NEILL & THATCHER, LLP

Attorney for Petitioner
15 Davis Avenue
Poughkeepsie, New York 12603
BY: THOMAS J. O'NEILL, ESQ.
BY: JOHN CIAMPOLI, ESQ., OF COUNSEL

GREENBERG, TRAURIG, LLP

Attorney for Respondent
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601
BY: STEPHEN RUSSO, ESQ.

Marco Caviglia, Commissioner

Erik Haight, Commissioner

Lisa M. Rivera
Senior Court Reporter

DECISION
1

THE COURT:

This is the case in the matter of the

application of Michael McCormack, Chairman of the Dutchess

County Republican Party Committee against Dutchess County

Board of Elections, et al., Index Number 3491 for the year

2015.

The Court entertained extensive oral argument

earlier this afternoon and rules as follows:

By order to

show cause and verified petition dated September 23, 2015

petitioner, Michael McCormack, seeks an order invalidating

10

the purported certificates of nomination that have been

11

filed with the Dutchess County Board of Elections by

12

individuals who are holding themselves out as the Women's

13

Equality Party.

14

the Dutchess County Board of Elections from placing the

15

name of the candidate-respondents on the ballot for the

16

November general election as candidates for the Women's

17

Equality Party.

Petitioner, also, seeks an order enjoining

18

The petition, also, originally requested an order

19

compelling the Board of Elections to comply with a decision

20

and order that was issued by New York State Supreme Court

21

Justice Frank Caruso from Niagara County on September 14,

22

2015 in the case of Delabio versus Allen.

23

decision was reversed by the Fourth Department in a

24

decision that was rendered on September 24, 2015.

25

reversal of Judge Caruso's decision negates Petitioner's

However, that

The

DECISION
1
2

request for an order enforcing that decision.

Respondents object to the petition on the

threshold basis that petitioner does not have standing to

assert these objections as to at least three candidates.

Specifically, petitioner is the chairman of the Dutchess

County Republican Committee.

petitioner only has standing to object to the certificates

of nomination for county level offices, such as County

Executive, County Clerk or County Legislator.

Respondents argue that

Respondents

10

argue the petitioner does not have standing to object to

11

the certificates of nomination for town or citywide office,

12

such as Town Supervisor or City Councilman.

13

three of the candidate-respondents, and I think it's

14

actually four, are only seeking town or citywide office

15

respondents argue that the petition must be dismissed as

16

against them and that the petition must be dismissed as

17

against the remaining candidate-respondents because the

18

dismissal of the petition as to the town and citywide

19

candidates deprives this Court of jurisdiction over

20

necessary parties.

21

Since at least

Respondents standing in necessary party arguments

22

are denied.

23

standing to assert these claims as against all named in

24

this proceeding.

25

The Court finds that the petitioner has

Turning to the merits, petitioner seeks the relief

DECISION
1
2

requested in the petition on three grounds.

First, petitioner asserts that the rules that have

been filed with the Board of Elections which have been

referred to in this proceeding as the Gold Rules are not

valid because they have not been certified by a majority of

the statewide candidates who ran on the Women's Equality

Group line in the 2014 general election.

this argument pursuant to Section 6-128, Subdivision 4 of

the Election Law.

10

Petitioner makes

Second, petitioner asserts that the certificates

11

of nomination are not valid because they were not

12

accompanied by an affidavit as required by Section 6-128,

13

Subdivision (1)(g) of the Election Law.

14

Third, petitioner asserts that the certificates of

15

nomination are not valid because the candidate-respondents

16

did not file timely acceptances of the Women's Equality

17

Party nominations as required by Section 6-146 of the

18

Election Law.

19

As to the first point, respondents argue that the

20

majority certification provisions of Section 6-128(4) are

21

only triggered by an actual question or conflict relating

22

to the rules.

23

failed to establish that a potentially valid set of

24

competing rules exists and that, therefore, there is no

25

actual question or conflict before this Court.

Respondents, also, argue that petitioner has

DECISION
1

As to the second point, respondents concede that

the certificates of nomination are not accompanied by an

affidavit bearing a jurat.

the certificates of nomination should be deemed to be in

substantial compliance with the requirements of Section

6-128(1)(g) of the Election Law.

However, respondents argue that

As to the third point, respondents assert that at

least some of the candidate-respondents timely filed

acceptances of the WEP nominations.

10

For the reasons stated by Judge Platkin in the

11

written decision that was issued earlier today in the case

12

of matter of Van Savage versus Fiala, Albany County Supreme

13

Court, Index Number 4596 for the year 2015, I hold that the

14

certificates of nomination are invalid because they do not

15

constitute sworn statements as required by Section

16

6-128(1)(g) of the Election Law.

17

certificates of nomination that had been filed with the

18

Dutchess County Board of Elections are declared invalid and

19

the Dutchess County Board of Elections is enjoined from

20

placing the name of the candidate-respondents on the ballot

21

for the November general election as candidates of the

22

Women's Equality Party.

23

Therefore, the

My decision on this second point renders all of

24

the certificates of nomination null and void and

25

effectively grants petitioner all of the relief sought in

DECISION
1

this proceeding, therefore, I decline to reach the

remaining arguments advanced by the parties in this

proceeding.

The Court notes that pursuant to Section 4-414 of

the Election Law today is the deadline for the Board of

Elections to certify the general election ballot.

Court, also, recognizes that numerous Election Law

proceedings addressing these issues have been filed in

trial courts around the state and that there are

The

10

significant time pressures associated with obtaining

11

Appellate review and final determination of these issues.

12

Therefore, the Court will not issue a formal written

13

decision and will instead issue a short form order

14

incorporating the transcript of my ruling from the bench as

15

a formal decision and order of this Court.

16

very much for your arguments and your preparation of the --

17

of your positions in this case.

18

MR. RUSSO:

19

MR. CIAMPOLI:

Thank you all

We are adjourned.

Thank you.
Thank you, Judge.

20
21

This is to certify that the foregoing is an

22

accurate transcription of my stenographic notes as

23

transcribed by me.

24

_____________________
Lisa M. Rivera

25

Lisa M. Rivera
Senior Court Reporter