Opinion
1267.1 CAE 17-01781.
10-20-2017
In the Matter of Irene RILEY, Citizen Objector, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony M. NEDDO, Candidate for Watertown City Court Judge upon Independent Nominating Petition for the Law and Order Party Filed August 16, 2017, and Jude R. Seymour and Babette M. Hall, Commissioners of and Constituting the Jefferson County Board of Elections, Respondents–Respondents.
Douglas Walter Drazen, Binghamton, for Petitioner–Appellant. Young Law Office, PLLC, Lowville (Michael F. Young of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent Anthony M. Neddo, Candidate for Watertown City Court Judge upon Independent Nominating Petition for the Law and Order Party Filed August 16, 2017. David J. Paulsen, County Attorney, Watertown, for Respondents–Respondents Jude R. Seymour and Babette M. Hall, Commissioners of and Constituting the Jefferson County Board of Elections.
Douglas Walter Drazen, Binghamton, for Petitioner–Appellant.
Young Law Office, PLLC, Lowville (Michael F. Young of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent Anthony M. Neddo, Candidate for Watertown City Court Judge upon Independent Nominating Petition for the Law and Order Party Filed August 16, 2017.
David J. Paulsen, County Attorney, Watertown, for Respondents–Respondents Jude R. Seymour and Babette M. Hall, Commissioners of and Constituting the Jefferson County Board of Elections.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 seeking to invalidate the independent nominating petition for Anthony M. Neddo (respondent) for the office of Watertown City Court Judge. On August 16, 2017, respondent filed his independent nominating petition as a candidate for that office on behalf of the Law and Order Party with the Jefferson County Board of Elections. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, petitioner sought to invalidate respondent's independent nominating petition on the ground that respondent himself had improperly witnessed the vast majority of signatures thereon because he had previously signed his own Republican designating petition naming him as a candidate for that same office. Supreme Court denied petitioner's requested relief and determined that respondent could properly sign as a witness his "Law and Order Party petition[ ] after he signed his own Republican Party petition." We affirm.
Election Law § 6–140(1)(b) provides that "[t]here shall be appended at the bottom of each sheet [of the independent nominating petition] a signed statement of a witness who is a duly qualified voter of the state " (emphasis added). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the statute does not contain any prohibition against respondent signing as a witness his own independent nominating petition after he had previously signed his own Republican designating petition. We see no reason to " ‘resort to extrinsic material’ " to interpret the statute inasmuch as the wording of the statute itself is clear and unambiguous (Matter of Harris v. Seneca Promotions, Inc., 149 A.D.3d 1508, 1510, 53 N.Y.S.3d 758 [4th Dept.2017] ; see Matter of Rochester Community Sav. Bank v. Board of Assessors of City of Rochester, 248 A.D.2d 949, 950, 669 N.Y.S.2d 1008 [4th Dept.1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 811, 680 N.Y.S.2d 457, 703 N.E.2d 269 [1998] ; see also McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 76).
Petitioner's reliance on Matter of Rue v. Hill , 287 A.D.2d 781, 731 N.Y.S.2d 506 [3d Dept.2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 602, 735 N.Y.S.2d 491, 760 N.E.2d 1287 [2001] is misplaced. Rue was decided before Election Law § 6–140(1)(b) was amended in 2009 and, given the nature of the amendment, we conclude that the holding of Rue is not applicable to the case before us.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.