general election challenge in New York

2024It is well established that "[a]ny action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge 'must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute' " ( Matter of Delgado v Sunderland , 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002] [brackets omitted], quoting Schieffelin v Komfort , 212 NY 520, 535 [1914]; see Matter of Hughes v Delaware County Bd. of Elections , 217 AD3d 1250 , 1256 [3d Dept 2023]).

2023"Any action [the] Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute" ( Matter of Delgado , 97 NY2d at 423 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2024It is well established that "[a]ny action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge 'must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute' " ( Matter of Delgado v Sunderland , 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002] [brackets omitted], quoting Schieffelin v Komfort , 212 NY 520, 535 [1914]; see Matter of Hughes v Delaware County Bd. of Elections , 217 AD3d 1250 , 1256 [3d Dept 2023]).

2009(Matter of Corrigan v Board of Elections of Suffolk County, 38 AD2d 825 [2d Dept 1972].) Any action the court takes with respect to a general election challenge “must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute” (Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002], quoting Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 535 [1914]).

2026"Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute" ( Matter of Jacobs v Biamonte , 38 AD3d 777, 778 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd. of Elections , 6 AD3d 18, 20).

2026"Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute" ( Matter of Jacobs v Biamonte , 38 AD3d 777, 778 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd. of Elections , 6 AD3d 18, 20).

2009(Matter of Corrigan v Board of Elections of Suffolk County, 38 AD2d 825 [2d Dept 1972].) Any action the court takes with respect to a general election challenge “must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute” (Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002], quoting Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 535 [1914]).

2002In a summary proceeding under Election Law article 16 respecting the conduct and results of a general election, “[Supreme Court’s] only powers are (1) to determine the validity of protested, blank or void paper ballots and protested or rejected absentee ballots and to direct a recanvass or correction of any error in the canvass of such ballots * * * and (2) to review the canvass and direct a recanvass or correction of an error or performance of any required duty.by the board of canvassers” (Matter of Corrigan v Board of Elections of Suffolk County, 38 AD2d 825, 827 [citation omitted], affd wit

2026Election Law § 16-106 provides courts with authority to review a board's decision to canvass or refuse to canvass a particular ballot during the canvass ( see id. § 16-106[1]; Matter of Gross v Albany County Bd. of Elections , 3 NY3d 251, 257; Matter of Johnson v Martins , 79 AD3d 913, 919-920, affd 15 NY3d 584).

2026Election Law § 16-106 provides courts with authority to review a board's decision to canvass or refuse to canvass a particular ballot during the canvass ( see id. § 16-106[1]; Matter of Gross v Albany County Bd. of Elections , 3 NY3d 251, 257; Matter of Johnson v Martins , 79 AD3d 913, 919-920, affd 15 NY3d 584).

2026Election Law § 16-106 provides courts with authority to review a board's decision to canvass or refuse to canvass a particular ballot during the canvass ( see id. § 16-106[1]; Matter of Gross v Albany County Bd. of Elections , 3 NY3d 251, 257; Matter of Johnson v Martins , 79 AD3d 913, 919-920, affd 15 NY3d 584).

2026Election Law § 16-106 provides courts with authority to review a board's decision to canvass or refuse to canvass a particular ballot during the canvass ( see id. § 16-106[1]; Matter of Gross v Albany County Bd. of Elections , 3 NY3d 251, 257; Matter of Johnson v Martins , 79 AD3d 913, 919-920, affd 15 NY3d 584).

2026"Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute" ( Matter of Jacobs v Biamonte , 38 AD3d 777, 778 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd. of Elections , 6 AD3d 18, 20).

2026"Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute" ( Matter of Jacobs v Biamonte , 38 AD3d 777, 778 [alteration and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd. of Elections , 6 AD3d 18, 20).

2024It is well established that "[a]ny action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge 'must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the Election Law statute' " ( Matter of Delgado v Sunderland , 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002] [brackets omitted], quoting Schieffelin v Komfort , 212 NY 520, 535 [1914]; see Matter of Hughes v Delaware County Bd. of Elections , 217 AD3d 1250 , 1256 [3d Dept 2023]).

2017“Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute.” (Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; Matter of Korman v New York State Bd. of Elections, 137 AD3d 1474 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 903 [2016], citing Matter of Scaringe v Ackerman, 119 AD2d 327 [3d Dept 1986], affd on op below 68 NY2d 885 [1986].) “In election cases, ‘[t]he field of [the court’s] powers is limited to the specified matters’ and the rig

2007“Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute” (Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, 97 NY2d 420, 423 [2002] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Flood v Schopfer, 20 AD3d 417, 419 [2005]; Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd. of Elections, 6 AD3d 18, 21 [2004]).

2007Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the provision of Election Law § 16-106 (1) which authorizes a challenge to original absentee voter’s ballot applications does not implicitly provide them with the right to review or acquire copies of all absentee voter’s ballot applications; as previously stated, any action taken by the Supreme Court with respect to a general election challenge must find support and authorization in the express provisions of the Election Law (see Matter of Delgado v Sunderland, supra at 423; Matter of Flood v Schopfer, supra at 419; Matter of Mondello v Nassau County Bd

2002Any action Supreme Court takes with respect to a general election challenge “must find authorization and support in the express provisions of the [Election Law] statute” (Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520, 535 [1914] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Hogan v Supreme Ct. of State of N.Y., 281 NY 572 [1939]).