Case Name: In the Matter of Anthony Grancio, Respondent, v. Frank Coveney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and William F. X. Klan et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1983-08-24
Citations: 96 A.D.2d 917
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Anthony Grancio, Respondent, v Frank Coveney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and William F. X. Klan et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 917–918

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Anthony Grancio, Respondent, v Frank Coveney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents, and William F. X. Klan et al., Appellants.

Opinion:
— In a proceeding to invalidate the petition designating William F. X. Klan as a candidate for the office of County Court Judge, Catherine T. England and James F. X. Doyle for the office of Family Court Judge, and Anthony R. Corso for the office of District Court Judge, First District, Suffolk County, in the Conservative Party primary election to be held on September 13,1983, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kelly, J.), dated August 22,1983, which, after a hearing, granted the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application denied. The board of elections is directed to restore appellants' names to the appropriate ballot. Special Term invalidated the designating petition on the ground that the candidates, who are not members of the Conservative Party, failed to obtain authorization as required by subdivision 3 of section 6-120 of the Election Law. The court concluded that the Rules and Regulations of the Conservative Party of the State of New York and of the Suffolk County Committee of the Conservative Party may validly impose this requirement on candidates for judicial office even though subdivision 4 of section 6-120 expressly exempts such candidates from that requirement. We disagree. The Rules and Regulations of the Conservative Party are clearly inconsistent with the obvious legislative intent to exempt candidates for judicial office from the requirements of subdivision 3 of section 6-120 of the Election Law (Election Law, § 6-120, subd 4). Those rules and regulations, which are inconsistent with the afore-mentioned legislative intent, cannot be enforced. Accordingly, the court's reliance on Matter of Kahler v McNab (48 NY2d 625) is misplaced. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.