Matter of Rodriguez v. Harris, 411 N.E.2d 777 (NY 1980). · Go Syfert
Matter of Rodriguez v. Harris, 411 N.E.2d 777 (NY 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Duck v. Mannion (nyappdiv, 2018-08-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Duck v. Mannion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
We further conclude that the court properly denied that part of the petition in which petitioner-candidate challenged the other designating petitions inasmuch as petitioner-candidate failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that those designating petitions are permeated with fraud or that respondent participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud ( see Matter of Rodriguez v Harris , 51 NY2d 737, 738 [1980]; Matter of Perez v Galarza , 21 AD3d 508, 508-509 [2d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 706 [2005]; Matter of Payne v Fleming , 286 AD2d 565, 566 [4th Dept 2001]; Matter …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Felder v. Storobin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The team method, however, has been judicially recognized as valid (see Matter of Rodriguez v Harris, 51 NY2d 737, 738-739 [1980, Fuchsberg, J., concurring]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Felder v. Storobin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The team method, however, has been judicially recognized as valid (see Matter of Rodriguez v Harris, 51 NY2d 737, 738-739 [1980, Fuchsberg, J., concurring]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Hennessy v. Board of Elections of County of Oneida
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Furthermore, even if the listed signer's son did sign for her, that would merely require invalidation of her signature and would not establish fraud in the subscribing witness statement entitling respondent to any greater relief ( see Matter of Van Der Water v Czarny , 153 AD3d 1555, 1556 [4th Dept 2017]; Matter of Fatata v Phillips , 140 AD3d 1295, 1296-1297 [3d Dept 2016]; cf. Matter of Burman v Subedi , 172 AD3d 1882 , 1883-1884 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 906 [2019]; see generally Matter of Rodriguez v Harris , 51 NY2d 737, 738 [1980]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robinson v. Edwards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
While a finding that a designating petition is “permeated with fraud” supports the invalidation of the entire petition (Matter of Tapper v Sampel, 54 AD3d 435, 436 [ 2008], quoting Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d at 482; see Matter of Perez v Galarza, 21 AD3d at 508-509 ), where the irregularities in the petition are not found by clear and convincing evidence to have been the result of fraud, only the invalid signatures or improperly subscribed designating sheets should be stricken (see Matter of Perez v Galarza, 21 AD3d at 509 ; Matter of Hennessey v DiCarlo, 21 AD3d 505, 506 [2005]; Ma…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Irma Rodriguez, Respondent,
v.
Moses S. Harris, Appellant, Et Al., Respondents; In the Matter of Moses S. Harris, Appellant, v. Anthony Sadowski Et Al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Sep 2, 1980.
411 N.E.2d 777
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Harry Kresky for appellant., H. Spencer Kupperman for Irma Rodriguez, respondent.
Cooke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs.

It was the factual determination of Special Term that there was no proof of forgery , or fraud or that the candidate himself had participated in or had any knowledge of the irregularities in the designating petition. In this circumstance the conclusion that, among 4,336. signatures held valid by the Board of Elections (out of a total 6,000 signatures), 9 signatures were invalid because they had not been taken by the notary or by the subscribing witness is insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud as to the method or on the part of the persons collecting the signatures or a pattern of irregularities, such as in either instance could be said to have permeated the entire designating petition.

Concurrence

Fuchsberg, J.

(concurring). I write separately because I believe we should note that, as the objectant conceded at argument, appellant’s so-called "team” method of gathering[*739] signatures was not per se improper or irregular. That said, I agree that, under the circumstances of this case, viewed either in the context of this modus operandi or by itself, it cannot be said that the disputed claim that the subscribing witnesses did not in fact administer oaths to 9 of the signators was sufficient to make out a case of permeation of the 6002-signature petition.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur; Judge Fuchsberg concurs in result in a separate memorandum in which Judge Meyer concurs.

Order reversed, without costs, and the judgments of Supreme Court, Kings County, reinstated in a memorandum.