Summary
In Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections, 131 A.D.3d 806, 15 N.Y.S.3d 530 (4th Dept. 2015), petitioner contended that the Niagara County Board of Elections violated the Open Meetings Law and his due process rights to notice and a hearing.
Summary of this case from Alam v. VitranoOpinion
886 CAE 15-01339
08-19-2015
In the Matter of David G. BONIELLO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NIAGARA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Lora Allen and Jennifer Fronczak, as Commissioners of Niagara County Board of Elections, and Matthew Marra, Respondents–Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)
James Ostrowski, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Appellant. Claude A. Joerg, County Attorney, Lockport, for Respondents–Respondents Niagara County Board of Elections, and Lora Allen and Jennifer Fronczak, as Commissioners of Niagara County Board of Elections. Michael J. Sullivan, Fredonia, for Respondent–Respondent Matthew Marra.
James Ostrowski, Buffalo, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Claude A. Joerg, County Attorney, Lockport, for Respondents–Respondents Niagara County Board of Elections, and Lora Allen and Jennifer Fronczak, as Commissioners of Niagara County Board of Elections.
Michael J. Sullivan, Fredonia, for Respondent–Respondent Matthew Marra.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Petitioner commenced the proceeding in appeal No. 1 seeking to validate his designating petition for the position of Niagara Falls City Court Judge on the Working Families Party primary ballot, and he commenced the proceeding in appeal No. 2 seeking to validate his designating petition for that same position on the Republican Party primary ballot. In each proceeding, Supreme Court denied the petition, and petitioner appeals.
In appeal No. 1, petitioner contends that the court erred in determining that the failure of a notary to date the jurat of authentication on one page of signatures on petitioner's designating petition was fatal to the validity of those signatures. The page contained nine signatures, and the only writing on the date line was the numeral “9.” Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the court “correctly held that [his failure] to date [the] jurat[ ] of authentication placed on his designating petition[ ] was fatal to the validity of [that] petition[ ]” (Matter of Sortino v. Chiavaroli, 59 A.D.2d 644, 644, 398 N.Y.S.2d 385, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 982, 398 N.Y.S.2d 415, 368 N.E.2d 37 ; see Matter of Stevens v. Collins, 120 A.D.3d 696, 697–698, 991 N.Y.S.2d 321 ; see also Matter of Quinn v. Erie County Bd. of Elections, 120 A.D.3d 992, 992–993, 991 N.Y.S.2d 380, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 908, 2014 WL 4230826 ; cf. Matter of Berney v. Bosworth, 87 A.D.3d 948, 949, 929 N.Y.S.2d 178 ). The date of authentication by a notary, like the date of a signed statement by a subscribing witness, is a matter of statutorily-prescribed content for which “ ‘strict compliance is required’ ” (Quinn, 120 A.D.3d at 993, 991 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; see Election Law § 6–132 [2], [3] ; Matter of Alamo v. Black, 51 N.Y.2d 716, 717, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 410 N.E.2d 1228 ; Stevens, 120 A.D.3d at 697, 991 N.Y.S.2d 321 ).
Petitioner further contends in each appeal that the manner in which respondent Niagara County Board of Elections (Board) invalidated his designating petitions violated the Open Meetings Law and his due process rights to notice and a hearing. In a proceeding to validate a designating petition, however, “the burden of proof is on the candidate to establish that the petition is valid,” and not merely to establish that the Board committed a procedural error (Matter of Goldstein v. Carlsen, 59 A.D.2d 642, 643, 398 N.Y.S.2d 459, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 993, 398 N.Y.S.2d 416, 368 N.E.2d 38 ; see Matter of Schneeberg v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 51 N.Y.2d 814, 815, 433 N.Y.S.2d 101, 412 N.E.2d 1326 ). In view of our rejection of petitioner's sole basis for contending that his designating petition was valid in appeal No. 1, as well as his failure to set forth any basis for contending that his designating petition was valid in appeal No. 2, we conclude that he “failed to meet his burden of establishing the validity of his designating petition[ ]” in either proceeding irrespective of the alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law and his due process rights (Matter of Adamczyk v. Mohr, 87 A.D.3d 833, 835, 928 N.Y.S.2d 804, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 706, 2011 WL 4357225 ; see
Schneeberg, 51 N.Y.2d at 815, 433 N.Y.S.2d 101, 412 N.E.2d 1326 ; Matter of Mansfield v. Epstein, 5 N.Y.2d 70, 74, 180 N.Y.S.2d 33, 154 N.E.2d 368 ). In any event, “[p]etitioner was not entitled to any greater due process than that provided by the statutory process for judicial review of [the Board's] determination pursuant to Election Law § 16–102(1)..., and petitioner took advantage of that process” (Matter of Iocovozzi v. Herkimer County Bd. of Elections, 76 A.D.3d 797, 798, 905 N.Y.S.2d 923 ; see Matter of Meader v. Barasch, 133 A.D.2d 925, 926–927, 521 N.Y.S.2d 113, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 611, 522 N.Y.S.2d 111, 516 N.E.2d 1224 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.