From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Blostein v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Aug 24, 1995
218 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

August 24, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County (Ceresia, Jr., J.).


Petitioner commenced this Election Law proceeding challenging the validity of numerous signatures contained in the designating petition of respondent Curtis Beebe, a candidate for the Conservative Party nomination for the office of Mayor of the City of Troy in Rensselaer County.

Contending that petitioner failed to adduce sufficient proof of his eligibility to vote for the office of Mayor of the City of Troy, Beebe moved to dismiss petitioner's challenge by asserting petitioner's lack of standing. After a hearing, Supreme Court denied the motion finding the proof sufficient to confer standing. Supreme Court then proceeded on to the merits of petitioner's claim and invalidated Beebe's designating petition upon the ground that it lacked the requisite number of valid signatures. Beebe appeals. We affirm.

Supreme Court ruled that 16 of the 82 signatures contained in Beebe's petition were invalid, leaving Beebe 12 signatures short of the required 78 to confirm his designation.

It is true that petitioner has the ultimate burden of proving the invalidity of Beebe's designating petition ( see, Matter of Acosta v. Previte, 51 A.D.2d 960, affd 39 N.Y.2d 720). However, the burden of proof on a motion remains with the movant ( see, Siegel, N Y Prac § 248, at 373 [2d ed]). Therefore, on his motion challenging petitioner's standing, Beebe had the burden of presenting facts sufficient to demonstrate that petitioner was ineligible to vote in the mayoral election in Troy. Absent such proof, petitioner's statements contained in the verified petition commencing the instant proceeding, and in an exhibit before Supreme Court to the effect that he was duly qualified and registered to vote for such public office, were sufficient to establish standing to challenge Beebe's designating petition ( see, Election Law § 6-154).

Cardona, P.J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Blostein v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Aug 24, 1995
218 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Blostein v. Bauer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAVIS F. BLOSTEIN, Respondent, v. HERBERT L. BAUER, JR.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Aug 24, 1995

Citations

218 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
630 N.Y.S.2d 814

Citing Cases

Marinello v. Marinello

"[O]n a plaintiff's summary judgment motion, or at trial, where a plaintiff's standing is placed in issue by…

Stavisky v. Lee

"Election Law proceedings are subject to severe time constraints, and they require immediate action" (Matter…