Ippolito v. Power (1968)

Since the ratio of the remaining 17 irregular votes to the narrow margin of victory is of such major proportion that it is impossible to determine who rightfully was nominated, a new primary election must be held (see Election Law § 16-102 [3]; Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 596-597 [1968]; Matter of Komanoff v Dodd, 114 AD2d 429, 429-430 [1985]; Matter of Leaks v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 685, 686 [1982]).

Aside from the fact that the mailing announcing the organizational meeting was reasonably calculated to give timely notice to the County Committee members, the alleged irregularities adduced at the hearing were not “of such a nature as to establish the probability that the result of the election would be changed by a shift in, or an invalidation of, the questioned votes,” thereby requiring a new election (Matter of Lisa v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 40 NY2d 911, 912 …

It is better to keep the standards high . . . than to increase the opportunities for fraud without possibility or likelihood of discovery” (Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 598 [1968]).

(Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 598 [emphasis added].) Here the plaintiff has not shown that the irregularities were of such a number “ ‘as to establish the probability that the outcome of the election would have differed if the irregular votes had not been cast’ ”.

En Ippolito v. Power, 241 N.E.2d 232, 233-234 (1968), donde el margen de victoria fue de únicamente diecisiete (17) votos y alrededor de cien (100) votos no eran válidos, debido a irregularidades en el proceso, la Corte de Apelaciones de Nueva York expresó, al confirmar la decisión de conceder una nueva elección, que: While it is troubling to require new election for irregularities without evidence of fraud or other intentional misconduct, ignoring such irregularities would …

Memorandum: We agree with Special Term’s determination that there was showing of irregularities in sufficiently large "number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes” to warrant a new primary election (Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 597, 598 ; Matter of Santucci v Power, 33 AD2d 517 , affd 25 NY2d 897 .) There is no authority, however, for the court’s direction that the new election for t…

Since there was no "likelihood that the questioned votes produced or could produce a change in the result” as to the two highest vote-getters (Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594, 598), these two had won the primary, the voters’ choice as to these two should be respected, and it was not unjust to provide that they not be subjected to another primary election.

The test set forth in In re Ippolito v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 594, 597 , 294 N.Y.S.2d 209, 211 , 241 N.E.2d 232, 233 (1968) is as follows: “[I]f irregularities are sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes, there should be a new election. . . . ‘An election will not be overturned upon a mere mathematical possibility that the results could have been changed, when the probabilit…

Due to the narrow margin of victory, there were sufficient irregularities in the primary as to render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was nominated (Election Law § 16-102 [3]; see, Matter oflppolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594 ).

This is not a situation where “the ratio of irregularities to the margin of victory is of such major proportion [that] we direct that a new election be held” (Matter of Leaks v Rosenfeld, 91 AD2d 685, 686 [185 irregularities to 42-vote margin of victory]; see Matter of Ippolito v Power, 22 NY2d 594 [101 irregularities to 17-vote margin of victory, therefore, new election]; Matter of De Martini v Power, 27 NY2d 149 [149 irregularities to 62-vote margin of victory, no new elec…