Reed, II, Thomas W. v. Walsh, James a., 101 A.D.3d 1661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Reed, II, Thomas W. v. Walsh, James a., 101 A.D.3d 1661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Laity v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2017-08-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Laity v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioner challenges the primary ballot and the general election ballot, the proceeding is moot because *1080 the 2016 presidential primary and general elections have already taken place and “the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this” appeal (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see Matter of Danielewicz v Aurigema, 58 NY2d 881, 881-882 [1983]; Matter of Reed v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1661, 1662 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Thomas W. Reed, II, Respondent,
v.
James A. Walsh Et Al., Respondents, and Lori C. Gardner, Appellant
CAE 12-01973.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 21, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1661
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum: Petitioner filed a designating petition that purported to nominate him as the Independence Party’s candidate for the office of Representative in Congress from the 23rd Congressional District of New York. After the New York State Board of Elections (Board) determined that the petition did not contain a sufficient number of valid signatures,[*1662] petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to validate his designating petition. Supreme Court, after a hearing, granted the petition and ordered the Board to place petitioner’s name on the ballot for the general congressional election on the Independence Party line. The court thereafter denied respondent Lori C. Gardner’s motion to vacate that order, and she now appeals.

“An ‘appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment’ ” (Wisholek v Douglas, 97 NY2d 740, 742 [2002], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Here, the general election at issue took place on November 6, 2012, and, in contrast to our authority to order a new primary election (see Election Law § 16-102 [3]; Matter of Corrigan v Board of Elections of Suffolk County, 38 AD2d 825, 826-827 [1972], affd 30 NY2d 603 [1972]), we lack the authority to “remove the successful candidate from office or order a new general election” (Matter of Hanington v Coveney, 62 NY2d 640, 641 [1984]; see Matter of Conroy v Levine, 62 NY2d 934, 935 [1984]; Matter of Uciechowski v Hill, 205 AD2d 825, 825 [1994]). The appeal is therefore moot, and, inasmuch as the exception to the mootness doctrine is not implicated here, we dismiss the appeal (see Hanington, 62 NY2d at 641-642; People ex rel. Geer v Common Council of Troy, 82 NY 575, 576 [1880]; Uciechowski, 205 AD2d at 825). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Valentino, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.