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. 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. 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
Nov 26, 1996

Gelb v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiff Irving Gelb challenged the New York State Board of Elections, alleging violations of his federal and state rights during the 1993 Bronx County Democratic Party primary and general election. Gelb, a write-in candidate, claimed the Board failed to properly inform voters about write-in options and provide necessary means like ballot space and pencils. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, while denying Gelb's motion. The court found that the alleged election irregularities did not amount to pervasive unfairness or intentional discrimination to constitute a federal constitutional violation under due process or equal protection clauses, and adequate state remedies were available. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Election LawWrite-in VotingConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsAbstention DoctrineVoting Irregularities
References
31
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

Strong v. Suffolk County Board of Elections

Michael Strong, an independent candidate for Congress, filed a pro se complaint against the Suffolk County Board of Elections commissioners, alleging that his ballot placement for the November 8, 1994 election violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. Strong claimed the ballot design was arbitrary and discriminatory, putting him at a disadvantage. The court previously denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. In this decision, addressing the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to a favorable ballot position, only to ballot access. Finding that the defendants' actions were within their discretion under New York Election Law and did not constitute a constitutional violation, the court granted the motion to dismiss Strong's complaint in its entirety and denied leave to amend.

Ballot PlacementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentSection 1983Election LawPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissSuffolk CountyIndependent CandidateVoter Rights
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Gunn

Plaintiff Doice Hill sued defendants, including the Dutchess Board of Electors and its workers, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of her civil rights during the November 6, 2001 election. Hill claimed she was denied her right to vote and due process when a voting machine malfunctioned and election officials refused to let her re-cast her ballot. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that negligent or incompetent conduct by election officials, even if intentional in refusing a re-vote, does not constitute a purposeful or willful deprivation of rights required for a § 1983 claim under the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, the court found no factual basis for claims under the Nineteenth or Twenty-Sixth Amendments regarding gender or age discrimination, dismissing them as well as any pendant state law claims without prejudice.

Civil RightsVoting RightsDue Process42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissElection IrregularitiesVoting Machine MalfunctionFourteenth AmendmentNineteenth AmendmentTwenty-Sixth Amendment
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections

Plaintiff Abraham J. Hirschfeld and William M. Van Luvender sued the Board of Elections of the City of New York after Hirschfeld's nominating petitions for the 14th Congressional District were invalidated. They claimed violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hirschfeld sought an order to accept his certificate of acceptance nunc pro tunc as of August 31, 1992. The defendant moved to dismiss the action. The court found that Hirschfeld was misled by a Board of Elections clerk and that the Board's rules were not reasonably available. The judge ruled that rejecting the certificate under these facts was unconstitutional, citing various ballot access precedents. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentBallot AccessIndependent CandidateNominating PetitionsElection LawConstitutional Law
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2011

Marchant v. New York City Board of Elections

The plaintiffs, a group of voters, commenced an action against the New York City Board of Elections and other named defendants. They sought a mandatory injunction to compel the Board to place Everly D. Brown on the ballot for District Attorney of Queens County in the Democratic Primary, arguing that the Board improperly invalidated signatures on his petition due to mismatched addresses. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the Help Americans Vote Act and the National Voters Registration Act. Judge Matsumoto denied the preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their due process and equal protection claims, and that the balance of hardships did not tip in their favor. The court noted the significant administrative and fiscal burdens compliance would place on the Board.

Election LawVoter RightsPreliminary InjunctionDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationBallot AccessDesignating PetitionQueens CountyNew York City Board of Elections
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 15,621 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