7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
1/11
At a Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Part25, held in and for the County of Erie at 25Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York on the 12 th
day of August, 2013
PRESENT: HON. HENRY NOWAK, J.S.C.Justice Presiding
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ERIE
_____________________________________
KEVIN R. HARDWICK, EDWARD A. RATHLEONARD K. PERO, JEFFREY W. GIER,CHRISTOPHER K. ARONICA, RAYMOND A.
BILLICA, JAMES B. TOMKINS, JAMES MAYROSE,
Petitioners DECISION AND ORDER vs.
INDEX NO. I-2013-002178
DENNIS E. WARD and RALPH M. MOHR, AsCommissioners of and constituting THE ERIECOUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS;NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS;and ERIE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE;and EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ERIECOUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE; andJEREMY J. ZELLNER, Chair of the Erie CountyDemocratic Committee and Presiding Officer of aPurported Authorization Meeting; andDENNIS E. WARD, Secretary of the Erie CountyDemocratic Committee and Secretary of aPurported Authorization Meeting; and
Respondents,
WILLIAM CONRAD III, ALAN K. GETTER,COLLEEN M. SIENER, DAVID M. GUNNER,DONALD L. CLARK, PAULETTE R. RENALDO,JAMES P. DePASQUALE, DAVID J. ARCARA,PAUL J. CLARKSON, DAWN M. SPIRES, LYNN
Page 1 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
2/11
M. KRAJIC, PEVERLY A. KINNERY, SARAH E.TOLLNER, WILLIAM M. STANLEY, LEON E.BERNER, JULIE L. LATHROP, ERIK M.POLKOWSKI, MICHAEL J. SHERY
Respondent-Candidates.
A proceeding brought pursuant to New York StateElection Law 1-106. 16-102, 16-116 and 6-120 for the purpose of invalidating certainauthorizations purportedly issued by the ErieCounty Democratic Committee and the ExecutiveCommittee of the Erie County DemocraticCommittee.
_____________________________________
Petitioners move for an order invalidating a Democratic Party certificate of authorization
as well as the underlying designating petitions for the Respondent-Candidates, which would then
remove them as Democratic Party candidates for the September 10, 2013 primary election and
November 4, 2013 general election for various public offices. Petitioners also seek that this
court direct the Respondent, Erie County Board of Elections, to remove the Respondent-
Candidates names from the ballots for such elections.
Respondents move for summary judgment dismissing the petition. First, respondents
allege that petitioners lack standing against ten of the eighteen Respondent-Candidates. Second,
respondents claim that without jurisdiction over those ten, the court must dismiss the petition to
invalidate the certificate of authorization for lack of necessary parties. They further seek
summary judgment because the certificate of authorization was personally delivered to an
employee of the United States Postal Service on July 15, 2013, and thus was timely filed under
the Election Law.
Page 2 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
3/11
In deciding the instant motions, the court considered the following:
- July 23, 2013 Order to Show Cause granted by Hon. Joseph R. Glownia, J.S.C.;
- July 23, 2013 Verified Petition, with exhibits annexed thereto;
- August 2, 2013 Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by Respondents ErieCounty Democratic Committee, Executive Committee of the Erie CountyDemocratic Committee, Jeremy J. Zellner, and Respondent-Candidates WilliamConrad III, Alan K. Getter, Donald L. Clark, Paulette R. Renaldo, Peverly A.Kinney, Sarah E. Tollner, William M. Stanley, and Erik M. Polkowski;
- Affidavit of Erich S. Weyant, sworn to on August 1, 2013, and exhibits attachedthereto;
- August 2, 2013 Verified Answer to the Petition by Respondents Erie County
Democratic Committee, Executive Committee of the Erie County DemocraticCommittee, Jeremy J. Zellner, and Respondent-Candidates William Conrad III,Alan K. Getter, Donald L. Clark, Paulette R. Renaldo, Peverly A. Kinney, SarahE. Tollner, William M. Stanley, and Erik M. Polkowski;
- August 2, 2013 Verified Answer of Dennis E. Ward, as Commissioner of the ErieCounty Board of Elections;
- Answering Affidavit of Ralph M. Mohr, sworn to on August 6, 2013;
- Affidavit of Edward A. Rath, sworn to on August 6, 2013
- Affidavit in Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment and Dismissal, andin reply to Respondents answer, by Emilio Colaiacovo, Esq., sworn to on August7, 2013, and exhibits attached thereto;
- August 8, 2013 Notice of Motion by Dennis E. Ward, Esq., as Secretary of theErie County Democratic Committee seeking dismissal of the invalidation
proceeding, summary judgment and other declaratory relief;
- Affidavit of Dennis E. Ward, Esq., sworn to on August 8, 2013, and exhibitsattached thereto, in support of that motion;
- August 8, 2013 Supplemental Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment byRespondents Erie County Democratic Committee, Executive Committee of theErie County Democratic Committee, Jeremy J. Zellner, and Respondent-Candidates William Conrad III, Alan K. Getter, Donald L. Clark, Paulette R.
Page 3 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
4/11
Renaldo, Peverly A. Kinney, Sarah E. Tollner, William M. Stanley, and Erik M.Polkowski;
- Supplemental Affidavit of Erich S. Weyant, sworn to on August 8, 2013 insupport of such motion;
- Supplemental Affidavit of Jeffrey Sheridan, sworn to on August 8, 2013, insupport of such motion;
- Affidavit of Martin R. Siminski, sworn to on August 8, 2013, and exhibit attachedthereto, in support of such motion;
- Notice of Motion to Dismiss by Respondent-Candidates Colleen M. Siener, DavidM. Gunner, James P. DePasquale, David J. Arcara, Paul J. Clarkson, Dawn M.Spires, Lynn M. Krajacic, Leon E. Berner, Julie L. Lathrop and Michael J. Sherry;
- August 8, 2013 Affirmation of Sean E. Cooney, Esq., in support of such motion;
- Reply Affidavit of Emilio Colaiacovo, Esq., sworn to on August 9, 2013;
- Oral argument by Emilio Colaiacovo, Esq., Dennis Ward, Esq., Jerome D. Schad,Esq., and Jonathan M. Gorski, Esq., held on August 12, 2013; and
- Petitioners Exhibit 1, accepted into evidence on August 12, 2013.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
On July 13, 2013, the Executive Committee of the Erie County Democratic Committee
convened and authorized candidates for the nomination of Democratic party for various public
offices. 1 The authorization nominating these candidates was signed by respondent, Jeremy J.
Zellner, Chair of the Erie County Democratic Committee, and Dennis E. Ward, Secretary of the
1 Eighteen candidates were authorized for the following offices: Erie CountyLegislator (4 th Legislative District), Erie County Legislator (6 th Legislative District), Town of Aurora Town Clerk, Town of Aurora Highway Superintendent, Town of Brant Supervisor, Townof Brant Board Member, Town of Colden Supervisor, Town of Colden Councilman, Town of Colden Highway Superintendent, Town of Evans Town Clerk, Town of Grand IslandCouncilman (2 seats), Town of Grand Island Highway Superintendent, Town of MarillaSupervisor, Town of Marilla Councilman, Town of Newstead Councilman, Town of OrchardPark Councilman.
Page 4 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
5/11
Erie County Democratic Committee, on July 15, 2013. No one filed an objection with the Erie
County Board of Elections objecting to the Erie County Democratic Committees Certificate of
Authorization.
Respondents allege that on July 15, 2013, Jeffrey Sheridan, Executive Director of the Erie
County Democratic Committee, and Erich S. Weyant, staff member of that same committee,
prepared and assembled sixteen large manilla envelopes and one white business envelope for
mailing that evening. The white business envelope included the certificate of authorization at
issue. Mr. Sheridan placed first class postage on the envelope and addressed it to the Erie
County Board of Elections. Mr. Weyant left the offices of the Erie County Democratic
Committee at approximately 8:45 p.m. and arrived at the United States Postal Service mail
facility on Cayuga Road in the Town of Cheektowaga shortly after 9:00 p.m. that evening.
Mr Weyant asserts that he carried the seventeen envelopes in for mailing, and was
ultimately assisted by a postal clerk with whom he was familiar. At that time, the postal clerk
took all seventeen envelopes, including the white business envelope that held the certificate of
authorization, from Mr. Weyant. Mr. Weyant advised the postal clerk that he was required to
have the white business envelope hand stamped that day, and that the other sixteen envelopes
were to be sent by certified mail. The clerk began processing certified mail postage which was
required for the sixteen manilla envelopes. Mr. Weyant was not required to purchase postage for
the white business envelope at issue, as it already had a first class postage stamp on it, but
obtained a receipt for the certified mail on the other envelopes dated July 15, 2013 at 9:32 p.m.
Mr. Weyant then left all seventeen envelopes with the postal clerk, assuming that he had hand
stamped the white business envelope at issue.
Page 5 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
6/11
The Erie County Board of Elections received the white envelope including the Erie
County Democratic Committees Certificate of Authorization on July 17, 2013. The envelope
was postmarked on July 16, 2013, not July 15, 2013. Subsequent to the date, Dennis E. Ward,
Esq., who also serves as Commissioner of the Erie County Board of Elections, received a July
18, 2013 letter from Martin R. Siminski, (A) Postmaster for the United States Postal Service in
Buffalo, New York. The letter, which was verified and incorporated into an affidavit by Mr.
Siminski, requested the Erie County Board of Elections to accept the white envelope and its
contents as mailed on July 15, 2013. Mr Siminski claimed that the postal clerk who assisted Mr.
Weyant was in fact requested to stamp the envelope with a ring date on July 15, 2013 but
failed to do so. Instead, the envelope was processed the following day, resulting in the July 16,
2013 stamp. Mr. Siminski admits that it was clerk error that he did not hand cancel the
envelope on July 15, 2013.
The petition seeking to invalidate the Certificate of Authorization was signed on July 23,
2013. Petitioners are candidates for eight of the eighteen public offices addressed in the
certificate of authorization, and therefore, the authorizations purportedly designate opponents for
the offices sought by each petitioner. However, ten of the candidates listed on the certificate of
authorization have no corresponding petitioners seeking the same offices.
I. THE ISSUE OF STANDING AND NECESSARY PARTIES
Under Election Law 16-102 (1), a certificate of authorization may be challenged only by
only any aggrieved candidate, or by the chairman of any party committee or by a person who
shall have filed objections, as provided in this chapter. Petitioners do not include any party
chairmen or objectors; instead, they only have standing as aggrieved candidates. Further, it is
Page 6 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
7/11
undisputed that petitioners could only be considered as aggrieved candidates against eight of the
candidates listed in the Certificate of Authorization, and none of them are aggrieved candidates
against the other ten.
Respondents claim that by failing to have aggrieved candidate status against ten of the
eighteen candidates listed on the certificate of authorization, petitioners lack standing as to those
ten Respondent-Candidates. In Dixon v Reynolds , Sup Ct, Erie County, July 30, 2009, Devlin, J.,
index No. 2009/7941, affd on other grounds 65 AD3d 819 (4th Dept 2009), the court found that
the petitioner in that matter had no standing to challenge a certificate of authorization listing
three other candidates, where the petitioner was arguably an aggrieved candidate against only
one. Respondents therefore contend that the ten Respondent-Candidates without corresponding
petitioners running against them are not properly before the court, regardless of whether they
were joined as parties and served with the instant petition. If those Respondent-Candidates are
not properly before the court, then the challenge against the Certificate of Authorization must be
dismissed for failure to include necessary parties, pursuant to Masich v Ward , Sup Ct, Erie
County, August 11, 2009, Devlin, J., index No. 2009/7941, affd 65 AD3d 817 (4th Dept 2009),
lv denied 13 NY3d 701 (2009).
The practical effect of respondents two-part argument is that if aggrieved candidates
challenge a certificate of authorization based solely upon their status as aggrieved candidates
(and not as objectors or party chairmen), then there must be a petitioner-candidate opposing each
respondent-candidate on the certificate of authorization. Petitioners respond to that argument by
contending that the notion of requiring correlative petitioners is simply an imaginary
requirement and that there is no authority that requires the same number of petitioners are
Page 7 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
8/11
respondents. Petitioners allege that only one aggrieved candidate is sufficient to challenge a
Certificate of Authorization. Respondents, however, claim the opposite - that for petitioners to
have standing to invalidate this Certificate of Authorization, they must have standing as either
aggrieved candidates, objectors, or a party chairman or for each and every candidate listed on the
certificate of authorization.
Notwithstanding a statement made by counsel for petitioners in an affidavit that
[p]etitioners only seek judgment against the corresponding candidates for those political office
(Affidavit of Emilio Colaiacovo, sworn to on August 7, 2013, 29), the parties agree that a
certificate of authorization is a single document that is either valid or invalid, and cannot be
modified by the court. That being said, prejudice to each side seems to increase with the number
of candidates listed on the certificate of authorization. If far more than eighteen candidates are
included on a certificate of authorization, how difficult would it be to assemble the same number
of petitioners? By the same token, why should one aggrieved candidate be able to strike many
other candidates against whom he or she has no interest?
Respondents contend that the disenfranchising relief sought by petitioners should never
be entertained unless no procedural defenses exist and the court can properly have jurisdiction
over all candidates listed on the certificate of authorization. Furthermore, respondents point out
that eighteen petitioners were not required to challenge the certificate of authorization in this
case; any registered voter who filed objections to the Certificate of Authorization pursuant to
Election Law 6-154 could have done so individually.
This court agrees. Election Law 16-102 (1) provides three different categories of
individuals who have standing to challenge a certificate of authorization. Any registered voter
Page 8 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
9/11
may file objections to have such standing. If individuals petition the court claiming only
aggrieved candidate status, then a sufficient number of petitioners with such status are
necessary to challenge each of the candidates listed on the certificate of authorization.
Accordingly, this court grants summary judgment to Respondent-Candidates Colleen M. Siener,
David M. Gunner, James P. DePasquale, David J. Arcara, Paul J. Clarkson, Dawn M. Spires,
Lynn M. Krajacic, Leon E. Berner, Julie L. Lathrop and Michael J. Sherry, as none of the
petitioners have standing against them. The court then grants summary judgment to the
remaining respondents, as the ten Respondent-Candidates listed above are necessary parties who
would be inequitable affected by invalidating the certificate of authorization ( Masich v Ward ,
65 AD3d 817 [4th Dept 2009]).
THE FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
6-120 (3) of the Election Law states that a Certificate of Authorization shall be filed not
later than four days after the last day to file a designating petition. There is no dispute that in
2013, the last day to file designating petitions was July 11, 2013, and the last day to file a
certificate of authorization was July 15, 2013. Pursuant to Election Law 1-106 (1), all papers
sent by mail in an envelope postmarked prior to midnight of the last day of filing shall be deemed
timely filed and acceptance for filing when received.
Had petitioners had standing to bring the instant petition against all respondents, this
court would grant summary judgment to respondents based upon the timely filing of the
certificate of authorization. While counsel for petitioners expresses disbelief as to particular
details included in Mr. Weyants affidavits, petitioners fail to raise any issues of fact to contradict
the sworn statements of Mr. Weyant, Mr. Sheridan, and particularly, Postmaster Martin R.
Page 9 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
10/11
Siminski. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to conduct a hearing to resolve disputed issues
of fact. Respondents established by undisputed evidence that the certificate of authorization was
placed in the care of the United States Postal Service on July 15, 2013, that a postmark was not
placed on the envelope bearing that date only due to clerk error, and that petitioners complied
with Election Law 1-106 (2) by filing the certificate of authorization within the time prescribed.
Compliance with Election Law 1-106 (1) is an opportunity to obtain presumptive
validity, not the exclusive means to establish timely mailing. The plain language of the statute as
well as relevant case law support that timely mailing can be demonstrated absent a timely
postmark ( see e.g., Fink v Salerno , 105 AD2d 489 [3d Dept 1984]; Valentino v Kelleher , Sup
Ct, Albany County, September 24, 2001, Teresi, J., index No. 5185-01; Hartley v Porpiglia , Sup
Ct, Chautauqua County, August 4, 1988, Mattina, J., index Nos. G-11951, G-11958, affd 143
AD2d 502 [4th Dept 1988], lv denied 72 NY2d 805 [1988]). The facts of Hartley v Porpiglia ,
supra , are particularly analogous to the instant matter the papers were handed to a postal clerk
on the last day for filing, a hand stamp was not placed upon the envelope as requested due to
clerk error, and the resulting postmark was for the following day. The court held that party filing
the papers fully complied with the full letter and spirit of the law ( id . at p. 5).
In each case cited by petitioners, there was no dispute that the particular papers were
mailed after the particular deadline ( see e.g., Amo v. Orange County Board of Elections , 286
AD2d 454 [2d Dept 2001]; Plunkett v Mahoney , 76 NY2d 848 [1990]; Hicks v. Eagan , 166
AD2d 735 [2d Dept 1990]). Consequently, they are distinguishable from the instant action.
Page 10 of 11
7/22/2019 8/24/13 Hardwick v. Ward decision by Judge Henry Nowak
11/11
For the above-stated reasons, respondents motion to dismiss the instant petition is
granted. This decision constitutes the order of this court.
ENTER:
____________________________________ HENRY NOWAK, J.S.C.
Page 11 of 11