| Reader's Comments |
 |
I have been watching the Bradley/Matusow Primary saga from Florida. Your web site is the most up-to-date, in-depth around. It's great for out-of-towners who want to keep up on news at home. I've found it more useful than The Journal News. You never skip a beat. It's the next best thing to being there.
-- Lynne Finer, former WP Resident
|
|
| White Plains Week |
|
 CLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW!
John Bailey
Jim Benerofe
welcome
Peter Katz
to the
WHITE PLAINS WEEK
NEWS TEAM
Fridays at 7:30
Mondays at 7
on
WPPA-TV
Channel 76
NEW!
See Current Edition of
White Plains Week
on the Internet at
www.whiteplainsweek.com
|
|
| User Info |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FLASH!Court of Appeals Reverses Appellate Decision. Hockley Can Take Seat
Posted on Thursday, March 14 @ 10:50:52 EST by jfbailey
|
|
|
FLASH! By John F. Bailey, 3/14/02, UPDATED 11:25 AM EST: The New York State Court of Appeals this morning, in a 8-page decision, has dismissed the Appellate Court ruling calling for a citywide election in White Plains to decide the disputed Larry Delgado/Glen Hockley District 18 voting machine jam. The ruling effectively means Glen Hockley can take a seat on the Common Council after the Board of Elections certifies the election results.
Buys Bradley Argument All the Way -- Delgado has one recourse-- the Attorney General
In the concluding paragraph of the brief, the Court of Appeals said they did not accept the caselaw cited by John Ciampoli, Mr. Delgado's attorney, allowing for a declaratory judgment action.
The judges upheld Adam Bradley's argument that Mr.Delgado's only relief was to file a quo warranto action with the Attorney General's office. Mr. Bradley, in a WPCNR interview, explained his principles of argument in detail. He also argued that only the legislature had the authority to change the law. And, the Court of Appeals agrees.
Ciampoli, Delgado's attorney, commenting to WPCNR moments ago said that he expected his client, Delgado, would file a letter with Attorney General Elliot Spitzer requesting a quo warranto proceeding.
The decision appears to be asking the Attorney General to step in:
Ciampoli's reading of the case, he says, indicates that the Court of Appeals wants the Attorney General to set up a proceeding to address the issue, or else "they will."
However, the seven Court of Appeals judges unanimously declined to break new ground in election law, which had been Adam Bradley's (the Hockley legal counsel) argument all along.
The key text:
Delgado and Supreme Court below relied on Matter of Felice v Berger (1992), in which the Appellate Division converted an Election Law article 15 proceeding into a declaratory judgment action, declared the election invalid and ordered a new election because of a defective voting machine. In converting the proceeding the Felice court, however relied on dicta from other lower court cases.
The only other authority that arguably supports the availability of a declaratory judgment action as an alternative to quo warranto is Shiels v. Flynn(1937). In Shiels, however, unlike this case, quo warranto was not available because the declared officeholder had died and the aggrieved candidate, who sought to establish the term of the office, had been appointed to fill the vacancy. Irrespective of the validity of Shiels, the Corrigan dicta should not be read as supporting the availability of a declaratory judgment action, commenced before the declared winner has taken office, to resolve a challenge such as the one raised here.
Delgado nonetheless urges that, entirely independent of quo warranto, when there are circumstances such as those presented here, the courts should determine whether the irregularity affected the election process and be empowered to order a new general election. We do not find such authority under the statute (See Election Law 16-1024) or decisional law. If such authority is to be accorded the courts, it should be by act of the Legislature.
In sum, quo warranto is the appropriate remedy in this case. We need not determine at this time whether a declaratory judgment action might lie as an alternative remedy where quo warranto has ceased to be available to the aggrieved candidate because the Attorney General has declined to act (various cases cited). Nor need we address Hockley's remaining arguments.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed without costs and the petition dismissed.
The complete decision can be downloaded from the Court of Appeals Website, by clicking on "Latest Decisions," Clicking on "March" and clicking on the Delgado vs. Sunderland line. The Court of Appeals website can be reached by going to White Plains Links on this site, and going to Courts in the News, and clicking on the CofA site.
|
| |
| Article Rating |
|
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0
|
|
|
