CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. No. 41
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

The Matter of Bethany Kosmider v.Mark Whitney, as Commissioner of the Essex County Board of Elections

This case addresses whether electronic copies of voted ballots are exempt from disclosure under New York's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) based on Election Law § 3-222(2). Petitioner Bethany Kosmider sought electronic ballot images from the November 2015 general election from the Essex County Board of Elections. The County Attorney denied the request, citing Election Law § 3-222(2), which restricts examination of "voted ballots" for two years without a court order. While lower courts ordered disclosure, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory restriction applies equally to electronic copies of ballots, thereby precluding their release under FOIL during the two-year period without proper judicial or legislative directive. The decision emphasizes the legislative intent to balance ballot secrecy, anti-tampering measures, accuracy, and finality in the electoral process.

Election LawFOILBallot SecrecyElectronic BallotsVoted BallotsPublic RecordsStatutory InterpretationCourt OrderLegislative IntentGovernment Transparency
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gelb v. Board of Elections

Plaintiff Irving A. Gelb (pro se) filed a case ("Gelb II") against the Board of Elections in the City of New York and its individual members and employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights concerning write-in voting procedures in the 1997 elections for Bronx Borough President. This case mirrored an earlier, unsuccessful action ("Gelb I") regarding the 1993 elections. Gelb claimed that the Board failed to provide adequate means or instructions for write-in voting, particularly in primary elections without an "opportunity to ballot" petition. The court denied Gelb's motions for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the Board's procedures were constitutionally permissible, that no pervasive unfairness was demonstrated, and that sufficient state law remedies were available. Consequently, his state law claims were also dismissed.

Election LawWrite-in VotingSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law RemediesDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corning v. Board of Elections

Justice Fuchsberg dissents from the majority decision concerning two cases related to New York's Election Law. He argues that subdivision 2 of section 8-100 of the Election Law is unconstitutional as it creates unequal voting hours for primary elections across different counties in the state. Fuchsberg asserts that this disparity violates the equal protection clauses of both Federal and State Constitutions, demanding a strict scrutiny test which the State failed to satisfy. He believes the State's justification of convenience and economy is insufficient to infringe upon the fundamental right of suffrage. Therefore, he advocates for affirming the judgment in Barone v Carey and modifying the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Corning v Board of Elections of Albany County to declare the problematic clause unconstitutional, ensuring uniform voting hours for all citizens.

Election LawVoter RightsEqual Protection ClauseStrict Scrutiny TestPrimary ElectionsVoting HoursConstitutional LawDissenting OpinionSuffrageEconomic Considerations
References
15
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05014 [197 AD3d 1503]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2021

Matter of Brown v. Erie County Bd. of Elections

Petitioner Byron W. Brown, after an unsuccessful Democratic primary bid for Mayor of Buffalo, submitted an independent nominating petition to the Erie County Board of Elections. The Board invalidated the petition, deeming it untimely under Election Law § 6-158 (9). Supreme Court subsequently granted Brown's petition, declared the filing deadline unconstitutional, and ordered his name added to the general election ballot. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, dismissed the petition, and vacated the prior declaration. The appellate court found that Election Law § 6-158 (9) imposes only a minimal burden on constitutional rights, which is justified by legitimate state interests, thereby upholding its constitutionality.

Election LawIndependent Nominating PetitionBallot AccessConstitutional ChallengeFiling DeadlinesPrimary ElectionJudicial ScrutinyAppellate DivisionCandidate RightsVoter Empowerment Act
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amedore v. Peterson

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 17,150 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational