Belak v. Rossi

In Belak v. Rossi, 96 A.D.2d 1011 (3rd Dept. 1983) the Appellate Division, Third Department, in a proceeding to invalidate a designation petition, stated the following [96 A.D.2d at 1011-1012]: While petitioner is correct in his contention that Special Term has jurisdiction to hear objections to signatures other than those objected to before the board of elections (Matter of Halloway v. Blakely, 77 AD2d 932, 431 N.Y.S.2d 119; Matter of Flowers v. Wells, 57 AD2d 636, 394 N.Y.S.2d 33), fundamental notions of due process require that a candidate be given some notice of which signatures on his petition are being challenged (see Matter of Suarez v. Sadowski, 48 NY2d 620, 621, 396 N.E.2d 198, 421 N.Y.S.2d 50). In Matter of Flowers v. Wells (supra), which was a proceeding brought by the candidate to validate a petition, there could be no surprise to the petitioner if any of the signatures were challenged since his action in bringing the proceeding had the effect of placing the validity of the entire petition before the court. There was also no prejudice to the candidate in Matter of Halloway v. Blakely (supra) resulting from the challenge to signatures against which no objections had been filed with the board of elections since the pleadings in that proceeding fairly apprised the parties which signatures were being contested. In contrast to those cases, respondents Barber and Longo were not given notice in this proceeding that petitioner intended to challenge any of the signatures in their designating petition other than those challenged before the board of elections. Petitioner's pleading made reference to the objections filed against the designating petition with the board of elections, listed general objections to the signatures, and requested the right to submit additional proof "to sustain the allegations contained therein." Petitioner's specific objections, which challenged signatures not previously challenged before the board of elections, were not served with petitioner's pleading and it does not appear that the candidates had notice of them until the matter was heard at Special Term. Under these circumstances, we find no error in Special Term's decision denying petitioner the opportunity to challenge any signatures not challenged before the board of elections since a fair reading of the pleadings does not give notice that any other signatures were being contested.