Roe v. Palmer

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Carola v. Saratoga County Board

    180 A.D.2d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 11 times

    However, Coreno did not claim to have a current residence within election district No. 5 and, in fact, indicated to the contrary on the affidavit ballot envelope. That being the case, even if we were to credit Coreno's testimony that she followed the Board's explicit directions in presenting herself first to the polling place for election district No. 1 and then the polling place for election district No. 5, her inability to fulfill the requirements of Election Law § 8-302 (3) (f) (ii) required that her vote be disallowed (see, Matter of McClure v. D'Apice, 116 A.D.2d 721, 723; Matter of Roe v. Palmer, 101 Misc.2d 1051, 1055).

  2. McCarthy v. Seney

    13 Misc. 3d 457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

    Election Law § 8-304 is the legislation ultimately enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate. The cases disqualifying individual votes cast without signature verification are numerous and consistent ( see, e.g., Matter of DeSapio v Koch, 14 NY2d 735, 736; Matter of Vallone v Power, 35 AD2d 678 [2d Dept 1970]; Matter of Roe v Palmer, 101 Misc 2d 1051, 1055 [Sup Ct, Madison County 1979, Zeller, J.]; see also, Matter of Hosley v Valder, 160 AD2d 1094, 1096 [3d Dept 1990] [absentee ballot disqualified because of signature "substantially different" from that found on ballot card]). Indeed, this court's research discloses the absence of any case that has held that an individual vote should have been counted in the absence of signature verification.