Lavell v. Baker

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered August 10, 2017 in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16. The order, inter alia, denied and dismissed the petition seeking to invalidate a certificate of authorization.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal by respondent Erie County Board of Elections is dismissed and the order is affirmed without costs.

We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner-objector has standing to commence this proceeding inasmuch as he is a registered member of the Independence Party and filed objections to the designation (see Election Law § 16-102 [1]). We further agree with the court that the remaining petitioners (petitioner-candidates), who allege that they are aggrieved candidates, lack standing. “[Ojrdinarily, a candidate of one party has no standing to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party in its designation of candidates” (Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher, 45 AD3d 960 , 962 [2007]). Here, petitioner-candidates claim that the authorization did not comply with the Independence Party’s own rules. As nonparty members, petitioner-candidates lack standing to raise that claim (see Matter of Breslin v Conners, 10 AD3d 471 , 473 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]).

Contrary to the contention of petitioner-objector, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. The State Committee adopted resolutions in 2008, 2011, and 2013 delegating the authority to issue authorizations to the Executive Committee (see Matter of New York State Comm. of the Independence Party v New York State Bd. of Elections, 87 AD3d 806 , 811-812 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 706 [2011]). The filing of new rules of the Independence Party in 2016 did not explicitly or impliedly rescind or revoke those prior adopted resolutions. Thus, as the court properly determined, the resolutions remained in effect, and the authorization issued here was valid. We respectfully

We reject the further contention of petitioner-objector that the presumption of validity set forth in Election Law § 6-154 (1) did not apply. Petitioner-objector’s challenge to the authorization was a challenge to the designating petition (see New York State Comm. of the Independence Party, 87 AD3d at 809-810 ). Such a petition is presumed valid provided, inter alia, that it is “in proper form” (§ 6-154 [1]). Where, as here, the presumption applies, action by the Board of Elections is required to invalidate the designation. Because “[a]ll actions of the board shall require a majority vote of the commissioners prescribed by law for such board” (§ 3-212 [2]), the Board of Elections “cannot act” when there is “a split vote among the two Commissioners” (Matter of Elgin v Smith, 10 AD3d 483 , 484 [2004]), as occurred here.

All concur except Troutman, J., who dissents in part and votes to modify in accordance with the following memorandum.

(dissenting). I agree with the majority in dismissing the appeal by respondent Erie County Board of Elections, but in my view Supreme Court should have granted the petition. I therefore respectfully dissent in part.

. Although I agree with the majority with respect to the issues of standing and the presumption of validity, I conclude that respondent New York State Committee of the Independence Party (State Committee) did not delegate authority to issue the Wilson-Pakula certificate of authorization (authorization) to respondent Executive Committee of the New York State Committee of the Independence Party (Executive Committee) in accordance with the Independence Party rules. Those rules state that delegation may be made “pursuant to a resolution adopted by the State Committee prior to the deadline to file authorization certificates.” That deadline is a date that occurs annually and is reset annually. Thus, contrary to the majority, I do not read the rules to allow a delegation to remain perpetually in effect, regardless of whether the resolutions themselves contain express language of expiration.

Moreover, the Independence Party’s past practice is inconsis

Present — Centra, J.P., NeMoyer, Troutman, Winslow and Scudder, JJ.