Court Opinion

ID: 9965590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 20:08:36.459405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.734531
License: Public Domain

Matter of Jones v Thompson
               2024 NY Slip Op 31519(U)
                     April 29, 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 04/29/2024 12:58 PM                                                               INDEX NO. 510864/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                                                                                    At the Special Election Part 1 of the
                                                                                    Supreme Court of the State of New York,
                                                                                  · held in and-forthe County of Kings, at the
                                                                                    Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street,
                                                                                  · Brooklyn, New York, on the 29th day of
                                                                                    April, 2024.

            PRESENT:

            HON. PETERP. SWEENEY,
                                 Justice.
            ------------------------------------------------------.----------------X.
            IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF,

            ANTHONY T. JONES

                                               PETITIONER-OBJECTORS/AGGRIEVED CANDIDATE,

                                      -against-                                                  Index No. :M8846,I I
                                                                                             .            SI O 86lf/~'f
            JAMMEL THOMPSON, DION C. QUAMINA, AND CLIFTON A. HINTON,

                                               RESPONDENTS-CANDIDATES,

                                      -AND-

            THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF
            NEWYORK,

                                               RESPONDENT
            .-· ----------------------------------------------------·---------------X·
            The following e-filed papers read herein:                                        NYSCEF Doc. Nos.:

            Order to Show Cause/Petition·
                                                ------- ---
            0ther p a p e r s ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                                                       1-2
                                                                                                       3-9

                                                                .                        '

                    Upon the foregoing papers, the -court rules as follows. On or about April 1, 2024,

           respondent-candidates Jammel Thompson, Dion C. Quamina, and Clifton A. Hinton filed

           · with the respondent Board\ofEie~tion$ in the City of New York (the Board) a designating

           petition seeking to be placed on the ballot in the June 25, 2024 Democratic Primary

                                                                      1

                                                                    1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 12:58 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 510864/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            Election for the party positions of Member of the Democratic State Committee from the

            55 th Assembly District. Thereafter, specifications of objections were served with the Board

            challenging signatures in Mr. Thompson and Mr. Quamina's petition. However, the

            specifications of objections were ultimately rejected by the Board based upon alleged

            defects.      Once this occurred, petitioner's only remaining mechanism in seeking to

            invalidate the designating petition was to file de-novo specifications of objections with the

            court in his capacity as an aggrieved candidate. 1

                     On April 16, 2024, petitioner-objector/aggrieved candidate Anthony T. Jones

            (petitioner) commenced the instant invalidating proceeding against Mr. Thompson, Mr.

            Quamina, and Mr. Hinton and the matter was made returnable for April 22, 2024. During

            the early morning hours of April 22, 2024, petitioner electronically filed on NYSCEF

            copies of a verified bill of particulars which contained de-novo specifications of objections

           · which purported to challenge the signatures in the designating petition. However, it is

            undisputed that the wrong verification and specifications were filed as they related to an

            entirely different invalidating proceeding. At the calendar call of the case, petitioner's

            attorney appeared but none of the respondent candidates appeared. However, no motion

            was made to hold them in default and the matter was adjourned to April 24, 2024.

                     Ot;1 April 24, 2024, the parties appeared before the court and Mr. Quamina made an
                          .            .
            oral motion to dismiss the invalidating proceeding based upon the fact that the wrong

            verification and specifications of objections had been filed against the designating petition.

            1 Under the Rules of the Special Election Part, specifications of objections "previously filed and served in

            accordance with the Rules of the Board of Elections in the City of New York need not be filed with the court."
            Here, the Board ruled that the specifications were not filed and served in accordance with its rules.

                                                                       2

                                                                  2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 12:58 PM                                             INDEX NO. 510864/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            In response, petitioner contended that the court should hold the respondent candidates in

            default for failing to appear at the April 22, 2024 calendar call and the court should

            otherwise reject the motion to dismiss inasmuch as the Election Part Rules require that all

            motions be made on the initial return date. Thereafter, the court directed that the parties

            submit papers to the court regarding the motion to dismiss on April 25, 2024 and adjourned

            the matter to April 26, 2024 for oral argument on the motion. At 11:47 am on April 24,

            2024, after the parties appeared before the court, petitioner electronically filed on NYSCEF

            an amended bill of particulars which contained the correct verification and specifications

            of objections. On April 25, 2024, Mr. Quamina submitted a written motion to dismiss to

            the court and the parties appeared before the court on April 26, 2024 where they essentially

            reiterated the arguments that they had previously raised.

                   Initially, petitioner's April 24, 2024 applicati0n to hold respondent candidates in

            default based upon their failure to appear in court on April 22, 2024 is denied as it was not

            made in a timely manner. Further, while it is true the Election Part Rules require that

            motions to dismiss be made on the initial return date, under the circumstances of this case,

            it would be inappropriate to penalize respondent candidates for failing to move to dismiss

            based upon a defective verified bill of particulars that was electronicaliy filed at 3 :41 am

           on the return date as they lacked adequate notice of the defect at the time of the calendar

           call.

                   Turning to the motion to dismiss, due to the extremely tight timeframe in which this

           court must complete its work prior to the deadline for filing appeals, the Rules for the

           Special Election Part states that all "specifications of objections ... shall be filed no later

                                                         3

                                                      3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 12:58 PM                                              INDEX NO. 510864/2024
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 11                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

            than the time of the calendar call on the initial return date" and the "[ f]ailure to file same

            shall be deemed a waiver and further proof shall be precluded." Moreover, the court's

            April 16, 2024 order to show cause in this matter contained a provision stating that "[ a]11

            parties are advised to review the Rules for the Kings County Special Election Part, which

            can be accessed via Judge Peter P. Sweeney's Election Part Rules on the Kings County

            Supreme Court, Civil Term home page." Thus, petitioner is deemed to have had notice of

            this rule. Here, the petitioner failed to file the correct specifications of objection prior to,

            or at the time of, the court's April 22, 2024 calendar call. Petitioner further failed to file

            the correct specifications of objections when the matter was called on the April 24, 2024

            adjourn date, presumably because petitioner was unaware that he had filed the wrong

            specifications of objections until respondent Quamina orally moved to dismiss the instant

            invalidating petition. Under the circumstances, petitioner was precluded under the Election

            Part Rules from untimely filing the correct specifications of objections (Matter of Wooton

            v Barron, 242 AD2d 351, 352 [1997]). Accordingly, respondent Quamina's motion to

            dismiss the instant invalidating petition is granted ~nd it is hereby:

                   ORDERED that that the instant invalidating petition is denied and dismissed.

                   This constitutes the decision and final order of the court.

                                                                ENTERFOR TH WITH

                                                                           HON. PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C.
                                                           4

                                                       4 of 4
[* 4]