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. 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. 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

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
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. 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

Maddock v. Reul

This case addresses a union dispute concerning the terms of office for its officials. Defendants were elected in 1928 for three-year terms, set to expire in December 1931. A constitutional amendment in 1930 shifted election dates to June. The union's parent organization ruled that current officers would hold over until June 1932 elections, overriding an initial alternative for bye-elections. The plaintiff faction's attempt to force bye-elections in December 1931 through a special meeting and subsequent election was declared a nullity by the court. The court affirmed that the issue fell under the parent organization's authority, and their ruling was without fraud, ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion.

Union DisputeOfficer TermsConstitutional InterpretationElection NullityParent Organization AuthorityHoldover OfficersMotion DeniedLabor RelationsInternal Union Conflict
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,031 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