Matter of Jones v Thompson 2024 NY Slip Op 31575(U) May 2, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 510864/24 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

1 of 5 P :RESENT: HON. PETER P. SWEENEY,Justice. At the Special Election Part 1 of the Supreme Court ofthe State ofNew York, held in and for the County ofKings, at the Courthouse, at. 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 2nd day of May, 2024.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------X IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY T. JONES, PETITIONER-OBJECTOR-AGGRIEVED CANDIDATE,

. -againstJAMMEL THOMPSON, DION C. QUAMINA, AND CLIFTONA. HINTON, RESPONDENTS-CANDIDATES,-ANDTHEBOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT r-e- 

### .------------------------ .------------------------------------------·---X The following e-filed papers read herein: Orderto Show Cause/Petition
---------- Otherpapers_______________ _

'- Index No. 510864/24

· 1-2

3-9 Upon the foregoing papers, candidate-petitionerAnthony T. Jones moves, pursuant · to CPLR 2221 (d), for leave to reargue the court's order dated April 29, 2024 (the prior order) which denied and dismissed petitioner's invalidating petition. As an initial matter, the court notes that respondent'Jammel Thompson was ruled offthe ballot bythe respondent Board ofElections in the City ofNew York {the Board) 1 

### [* 1]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

2 of 5 and statute of limitations for commencmg a validating. proceeding has expired.

. . 

### ,-
. . . .

Accordingly, the instant invalidating petition is only relevant withrespectto respondentscandidates Quamina and Hinton. Further, at oral argument on'the motion to reargue, and after receiving additional information from the Board ofElections, ithas become apparent . that some ofthe facts set.forth in the prior order are incorrect and shouldthus be corrected

·for the record._ In particular, the specifications of objections (Spec # 81) filed against respondent Quamina'sdesignatingpetition were notrejectedbythe Board, andtheBoard's Commissioners confirmed a clerk's report findi_ng that respondent Quamina'spetition ha_d 548 valid signatures, which is 48 more than necessary for placement on the ballot. However, the specifications ofobjections filed by petitioner-objector-aggrieved candidate Jones with the Board were for the wrong designating petition, thereby necessitating thaf petitioner proceed againstrespondents in his capacity as an aggrieved candidate by filing de-novo specifications ofobjections with the court. Furthermore, respondents Hinton and Quamina . were present in the courtroom on the initial April 22, 2024 return date and · informed oftheApril 24, 2024 adjourn date (to awaitthe Board'srulings) andboth ofthe~e
- respondents appe·ared before the court on that adjourn date. Finally, although the subject

_. . '



## . .

ofdefault was discussed on.the April 24, 2024 adjourn date; petitioner did not move to_ hold respondents in default at that time. Turning to the substance ofthe motion to reargue, petitioner contends that he has been treated inequitablyby the court inasmuch as it dismissed his invalidating proceeding



### - based upon the Special ElectionPartRule prohibiting the submission ofnew specifications of objections after the initial calendar call, but allowed respondents to move to dismiss 2 

### [* 2]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

3 of 5 notwithstandingthefactthatrespondents did not file an answer anddidnotmove to dismiss on the initial return date. Petitioner argues that the Special ElectionPartRules require that all motions to dismiss befiled no later than the call ofthe calendar onthe initial return date and prohibits the submission offurther proofafter such time. 1 In addition, the
- petitioner maintains that the court improperly dismissed the invalidating petition as against respondent Hinton inasmuch as respondent Quainina is the on~y party who moved to dismiss.

- As the court stated in the prior order, notwithstanding the Special Election Part Rules regarding the filing ofmotions, under the circumstances ofthis case, it would be



## . . improper to preclude respondents from moving to dismiss on the basis of incorrect specifications ofobjections. In particular, the court notes thatpetitioner filed via NYSCEF the subject de-novo specifications ofobjections a mere six and a halfhours (at 3:41 a.m.) before the calendar call on the initial return date, thereby depriving respondents ofa fair and timely opportunity to respond. Further, at oral argument on the motion to reargue, respondent Quaminastatedthathe did notreceive the incorrect specifications ofobjections and remained unaware ofthe defect until the evening ofApril 22, 2024, when he was provided with a copy ofthe specifications by an individual with access to NYSCEF. In · this regard, the court notes that respondent did not consent to service by Electronic Filing.

1As the court noted in the prior order, the reason why the court precludes parties from submitting additional specifications of objections after the initial calendar call is that such practice would

. allow for the review ofthese specifications to continue indefinitely, and prevent the court from

c~mpleting its work before the deadline for perfecting appeals. Thus, the Special Election Part Rules establish a firm deadline for the submission ofspecifications ofobjections. 3 

### [* 3]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

4 of 5 Once respondent Quamina had the information needed to make his motion, he did so promptly on the next adjourn date. In contrast, petitionerhadno valid excuse for filing the wrong specifications of objections with the court. Moreover, the court notes that respondent's motion to dismiss was not based upon "further proof' or new evidence that. was required to be submitted no later than the initial return date. It was based upon the incorrect specifications ofobjections that were already part ofthe record iri this case as of the early morning hours ofApril 22, 2024. In addition, while the Special Election Part Rules requirethat all answers be filed onthe initial return date, thereis nothing intheRules that precludes a party who fails to file an answer from opposing an invalidating/validating petition and/or filing a motion to dismiss. Turning topetitioner's contention that the court should nothave granted the motion to dismiss as against respondent Hinton, the court notes that Mr. Hinton was present in court on the April 24, 2024 adjourn date and stood before the court, along with respondent Quamina, at the time the motion to dismiss was orally made. Moreover, the court's ruling dismissing the invalidating proceeding was based upon its determination that the correct specifications ofobjections were untimely filed, which applies to all parties.

4 

### [* 4]

### FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/02/2024 03:28 PM INDEX NO. 510864/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2024

5 of 5 Accordingly, petitioner's motion for leave to reargue is granted, and upon reargument, the court adheres to its determination in the prior order. This constitutes the decision and order ofthe court.
ENT
J.S.C. 

### HON. PETER P. SWEENEY,

## J.S.C.

5 

### [* 5]