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 of the State of New York, 

held in and for the County of Kings, 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 CANDIDA TE, 

. -againstJAMMEL THOMPSON, DION C. QUAMINA, AND CLIFTON A. HINTON, 

RESPONDENTS-CANDIDATES, 

-ANDTHE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF 

NEW YORK, 

RESPONDENT r-e-

.------------------------ .------------------------------------------·---X 

The following e-filed papers read herein: 

Order to Show Cause/Petition ---------- Other papers _______________ _ 

'-

Index No. 510864/24 

· 1-2 

3-9 

Upon the foregoing papers, candidate-petitioner Anthony 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 

off the ballot by the respondent Board of Elections in the City of New 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 with respect to respondentscandidates Quamina and Hinton. Further, at oral argument on'the motion to reargue, and 

after receiving additional information from the Board of Elections, it has become apparent . 

that some of the facts set.forth in the prior order are incorrect and should thus be corrected 

· for the record._ In particular, the specifications of objections (Spec # 81) filed against 

respondent Quamina's designating petition were not rejected by the Board, andthe Board's 

Commissioners confirmed a clerk's report findi_ng that respondent Quamina's petition ha_d 

548 valid signatures, which is 48 more than necessary for placement on the ballot. 

However, the specifications of objections 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 of objections with the court. Furthermore, respondents Hinton and 

Quamina . were present in the courtroom on the initial April 22, 2024 return date and · 

informed of the April 24, 2024 adjourn date (to await the Board's rulings) and both ofthe~e -

respondents appe·ared before the court on that adjourn date. Finally, although the subject _. . ' 

. . 

of default 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 of the motion to reargue, petitioner contends that he has 

been treated inequitably by the court inasmuch as it dismissed his invalidating proceeding 

- based upon the Special Election Part Rule prohibiting the submission of new 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

notwithstanding the fact that respondents did not file an answer and did not move to dismiss 

on the initial return date. Petitioner argues that the Special Election Part Rules require that 

all motions to dismiss be filed no later than the call of the calendar on the initial return date 

and prohibits the submission of further proof after 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 of motions, under the circumstances of this case, it would be . . 

improper to preclude respondents from moving to dismiss on the basis of incorrect 

specifications of objections. In particular, the court notes that petitioner filed via NYSCEF 

the subject de-novo specifications of objections a mere six and a half hours ( at 3 :41 a.m.) 

before the calendar call on the initial return date, thereby depriving respondents of a fair 

and timely opportunity to respond. Further, at oral argument on the motion to reargue, 

respondent Quamina stated that he did not receive the incorrect specifications of objections 

and remained unaware of the defect until the evening of April 22, 2024, when he was 

provided with a copy of the specifications by an individual with access to NYSCEF. In · 

this regard, the court notes that respondent did not consent to service by Electronic Filing. 

1 As 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 of these 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 of specifications of objections. 

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, petitioner had no 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 of objections that were already part of the record iri this case as of 

the early morning hours of April 22, 2024. In addition, while the Special Election Part 

Rules require that all answers be filed on the initial return date, there is nothing in the Rules 

that precludes a party who fails to file an answer from opposing an invalidating/validating 

petition and/or filing a motion to dismiss. 

Turning to petitioner's contention that the court should not have 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 of objections 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 of the court. 

ENT 

J.S.C. 

HON. PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C. 

5 

[* 5]