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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Johnson v. Martins

This appellate decision concerns two related proceedings initiated by Craig M. Johnson and Jay Jacobs following a 2010 general election for State Senator in New York's 7th Senatorial District. The petitioners sought to review the validity of various ballots and compel a manual audit of voter verifiable records. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied a manual audit and made rulings on specific challenged ballots. On appeal, the court dismissed appeals from interim decisions but modified the final order. The appellate court directed the Nassau County Board of Elections to cast and canvass certain absentee ballots (exhibits 33, 154, 166) while prohibiting the casting of others (exhibits 8, 127, 182, 183). The denial of the manual audit by the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Election LawBallot AuditAbsentee BallotsVoter Verifiable RecordsGeneral ElectionState SenatorNassau County ElectionsJudicial ReviewElection ContestBallot Canvassing
References
20
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

Smith v. Sullivan

This case consolidates two Election Law proceedings initiated by candidates Richard J. Smith and Roseanne Sullivan for the Orange County 18th District county legislator seat, challenging various ballots after a close election. Sullivan sought to nullify two ballots due to extraneous marks, which the court denied, ruling they should be counted. Smith challenged several categories of ballots: three based on residency (withdrawn), six absentee/special ballots due to incomplete applications (granted), four due to handwriting discrepancies (denied), and 27 affidavit ballots (withdrawn). The court also denied Smith's request to allow 26 voters, who received incorrect ballots at the Bullville firehouse and did not return to cast affidavit ballots, to vote post-election, citing a lack of judicial authority to extend voting. The court highlighted the limitations of its power under Election Law Article 16, distinguishing the case from scenarios involving already cast ballots in incorrect districts.

Ballot ChallengesAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsVoter DisenfranchisementExtraneous MarksHandwriting AnalysisPoll Worker ErrorAffidavit BallotsOrange County ElectionsJudicial Authority
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panio v. Sunderland

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alessio v. Carey

This memorandum addresses an appeal by Paul G. Carey concerning a lower court order that partially granted a petition to count three absentee ballots for petitioner Alessio in a town justice election. The Onondaga County Board of Elections had initially invalidated these ballots. The appellate court, after a remittal from the Court of Appeals, reversed the lower court's decision. The court emphasized strict compliance with Election Law, determining that the absentee ballots were void due to irregular markings outside the voting squares, which could potentially identify voters. Additionally, a cross-claim regarding other invalidated affidavit ballots was dismissed for procedural reasons, although the court noted those ballots likely should have been counted due to ministerial error.

Absentee BallotsElection LawVoter MarkingsBallot InvalidityAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewElection IntegrityIrregular MarksTown Justice ElectionNew York Election Law
References
14
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

Mills v. Shelby County Election Commission

David G. Mills, a registered voter in Shelby County, Tennessee, filed a lawsuit under the Tennessee Declaratory Judgment Act against the Shelby County Election Commission and the Attorney General. Mills argued that the use of electronic voting machines without tangible paper ballots violated Articles I, Section 5 (free and equal elections) and IV, Section 1 (purity of the ballot box) of the Tennessee Constitution. He contended that paperless voting created an inequality in voting rights compared to counties using paper ballots and hindered legitimate recounts and election contests. The Shelby County Chancery Court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Mills' allegations were conjectural and did not present a justiciable controversy. Furthermore, the court clarified that "free and equal" refers to the right of suffrage, not the method of voting, and that "ballot box" does not mandate paper ballots, affirming the legislature's authority in election logistics.

Electronic Voting MachinesPaper BallotsTennessee ConstitutionSuffrage RightsBallot PurityDeclaratory Judgment ActJusticiable ControversyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewElection Law
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 90 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