MTR OF STOPPENBACH v. Sweeney
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Team Kennedy v. Berger (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Matter of Canary v. New York State Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Tischler v. Hikind (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Tischler v. Hikind (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Matter of Mandel v. Nassau County Bd. of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Cartwright v. Kennedy (New York Supreme Court, Albany County 2024)
- DiSanzo v. Addabbo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Stark v. Kelleher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Matter of Schultz v. Nassau County Bd. of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Sanders v. Ontario County Bd. of Elections (New York Supreme Court, Ontario County 2025)
- Matter of Wymczak v. Niagara County Bd. of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Matter of Joshua J. (Tameka J.) (N.Y. 2025)
- Matter of Pilla v. Karnsomtob (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Avella v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Pilla v. Karnsomtob (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- MatterofCollinsvNewYorkStateBoardofElections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Collins v. New York State Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Collins v. New York State Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Kepert v. Tullo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Arcuri v. Hojnacki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Bowen v. Ulster County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Objector commenced this proceeding challenging the sufficiency of the petition designating John Sweeney as the Inde *433 pendence Party candidate for the House of Representatives for the 20th Congressional District. Supreme Court invalidated the petition, excluding 48 signatures for failure of the signers to accurately designate a town or city, leaving an insufficient number of valid signatures (see Election Law §§ 6-130, 6-136). The Appellate Division affirmed with two Justices dissenting. Candidate appeals as of right based on the two-Justice dissent on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]). Objector cross-appeals.
Section 6-130 of the Election Law provides that “a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed.” Because, in a number of instances, the petition signers did not accurately set forth the town, the candidate did not have sufficient signatures. We adhere to our precedent in Matter of Frome v Board of Elections of Nassau County (57 NY2d 741, 742-743 [1982]; see also Matter of Zobel v New York State Bd. of Elections, 254 AD2d 520 [1998]) that compliance with the statute is required, as it constitutes a matter of substance and not of form. An amendment of the statute such as candidate seeks is for the Legislature to make. Moreover, in 1996, the Legislature amended section 6-130 by, among other things, eliminating the requirement of designating wards, election districts and assembly districts. Significantly, it left intact the provision requiring the designation of towns and cities (L 1996, ch 709, § 1-a).
This case is distinguishable from Molinari v Powers (82 F Supp 2d 57 [ED NY 2000]). There, a Federal District Court held that Election Law § 6-132 was unconstitutional in requiring a signer of a primary petition to list towns. In Molinari, however, the parties stipulated, and the record reflected, that “provisions of the New York State Election Law at issue herein impose an undue burden on access to ballot in connection with the 2000 New York State Republican Presidential Primary” (82 F Supp 2d at 71). Here the parties neither raised similar constitutional issues before the trial court nor sought to develop record evidence in support of constitutional violations, and we, therefore, have no basis for passing on constitutional issues.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. Objector’s cross appeal should be dismissed for lack of aggrievement.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in per curiam opinion; Judge Graffeo taking no part.
*434 On appeal by appellant-respondent, order affirmed, without costs. Appeal by respondent-appellant dismissed, without costs, for lack of aggrievement.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.