From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Leahy v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2003
307 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-07141

Argued August 19, 2003.

August 20, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Denise K. O'Rourke as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9, 2003, for the nomination of the Independence Party as its candidate for the public office of Nassau County Legislator for the 18th Legislative District, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated August 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition for failure to properly serve Denise K. O'Rourke and denied the petition on the merits.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, BARRY A. COZIER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the final order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the designating petition is invalidated, and the Nassau County Board of Elections is directed to remove the name of Denise K. O'Rourke from the appropriate ballot.

The Supreme Court improperly dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction over Denise K. O'Rourke, as the petitioners' method of service was reasonably calculated to complete service within the statutory time period ( see Matter of Contessa v. McCarthy, 40 N.Y.2d 890, 891; Matter of Stabile v. DeFronzo, 231 A.D.2d 577).

The unrefuted testimony establishes that notary public Paul Nehrich did not administer an oath or affirmation to the witnesses in any manner required by law ( see Helfan v. Meisser, 22 N.Y.2d 762; Brown v. Suffolk County Bd. Of Elections, 264 A.D.2d 489; Matter of Merrill v. Adler, 253 A.D.2d 505; Matter of Zuno v. Fein, 175 A.D.2d 935; Matter of Andolfi v. Rohl, 83 A.D.2d 890; CPLR 2309[b]). Consequently, the designating petition of Denise K. O'Rourke did not contain a sufficient number of valid signatures.

In light of this determination, the petitioners' remaining contention regarding notary public Mary Noe has been rendered academic.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Leahy v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2003
307 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Leahy v. O'Rourke

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL J. LEAHY, JR., ET AL., appellants, v. DENISE K…

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 1008 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
763 N.Y.S.2d 508

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Coulsting

CPLR 2309 (b) requires that an "oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form calculated to awaken the…

THE BANK OF NEW YORK v. KAHL

CPLR § 2309 (b) requires that an "oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form calculated to awaken…