In Matter of White v. Bilal, 21 AD3d 573, 800 N.Y.S.2d 596 (2d Dept. 2005), lv. to appeal dismissed, 5 NY3d 824, 837 N.E.2d 736, 804 N.Y.S.2d 37 (2005), candidate White brought a proceeding to invalidate the designating petition of candidate Bilal. During the pendency of the proceeding, the New York City Board of Elections invalidated the Bilal designating petition. Bilal obtained an order to show cause to which was appended his answer to the White court petition (as distinguished from his designating petition) and a cross petition, with the answer also containing counterclaims to invalidate the White designating petition and cross-claims to validate Bilal's own designating petition. Bilal did not seek leave to file the cross-claims, did not purchase an index number for the cross-petition and did not file the answer or cross petition. On the return date, White withdrew his challenge to the Bilal designating petition as academic, and Bilal sought to proceed on the merits of his counterclaims and cross-claims. The Supreme Court refused to hear the counterclaims and cross-claims and the Appellate Division (H. Miller, J.P.; Cozier, Crane, Rivera, J.J.) unanimously affirmed. The Appellate Division ruled that because Bilal did not properly seek leave of court to serve his cross-claims, the cross-claims were not properly before the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division also stated: Further, Bilal failed to properly and timely commence a separate proceeding to invalidate White's designating petition ... by purchasing an index number and filing an order to show cause and petition. 21 AD3d at 573 . While the Appellate Division did not explicitly discuss the viability of the counterclaims, it concluded that the Supreme Court was correct in not proceeding with them.