Plochocki v Onondaga County Bd. of Elections

[*1] Plochocki v Onondaga County Bd. of Elections 2005 NY Slip Op 51340(U) Decided on August 9, 2005 Supreme Court, Onondaga County Centra, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 9, 2005
Supreme Court, Onondaga County

Michael E. Plochocki, CANDIDATE, Petitioner,

against

Onondaga County Board of Elections, AND EDWARD J. SZCZESNIAK AND HELEN M. KIGGINS, COMMISSIONERS, Respondents.



05-4161



MICHAEL E. PLOCHOCKI, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

4753 Howlett Hill Road

Marcellus, New York 13108

JOANNA GOZZI, ESQ.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Attorney for Respondents

10th Floor Civic Center

Syracuse, New York 13202

John V. Centra, J.

Petitioner is a candidate seeking the office of County Legislator, 6th District. On July 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a designating petition with Respondent Onondaga County Board of Elections (hereinafter "Board") designating Petitioner as a candidate of the Republican Party for the office.

According to the petition before this court, Petitioner was required to collect the signatures of 400 registered Republicans living in the 6th District in order for the petition to be valid. Petitioner and his campaign volunteers collected 518 signatures. All 518 signatures were gathered by one of three individuals: Petitioner, James Plochocki (Petitioner's brother) and Mary Murphy-Meckler. [*2]

Petitioner is vice-chairman of the Marcellus Republican Committee and was placed in the position of being required to physically gather some signatures and serve as a witness for same on a designating petition for his potential Republican primary election opponent, James Rhinehart. Deborah Plochocki (Petitioner's wife) who is also a member of the Marcellus Republican Committee, had these same responsibilities.

On June 18 and 20, 2005, prior to Petitioner's brother and Murphy-Meckler witnessing any signatures for his petition, Petitioner requested that his brother and Murphy-Meckler sign the designating petition for Rhinehart being witnessed by Petitioner. On June 19, 2005, Petitioner, prior to witnessing any signatures on his petition or all but five of the signatures he witnessed for Rhinehart, signed the designating petition for Rhinehart being witnessed by his wife.

On July 17, 2005, after Petitioner filed his petition, John Petosa filed a written general objection to the petition with the Board. On July 21, 2005, he filed specific objections and in response, Respondents Edward J. Szczesniak and Helen M. Kiggins, Commissioners, invalidated the petition as not containing the required number of signatures.

Petitioner has brought the instant application before this court seeking an order nullifying Respondents' determination. Respondents have answered and seek dismissal of this petition for failure to name a necessary party.

Petitioner named as Respondents the Board and its Commissioners, but failed to name the individual who filed the general and specific objections, John Petosa. By failing to include the objector, John Petosa, as a party, Petitioner has failed to name a necessary party to the proceeding. As such, this court is constrained to dismiss this petition. Wein v. Molinari, 51 NY2d 717, 718 (1980).

Were the court not to dismiss the petition on the ground that Petitioner failed to name a necessary party, the court would have to agree with Respondents' determination. The witnesses to Petitioner's designating petition had previously signed the designating petition of another individual seeking to be designated as a Republican Party candidate for the same office. Due to this previous signing, these witnesses and Petitioner were not qualified to witness signatures for Petitioner and the signatures on the pages they had witnessed can not be counted. Due to a finding that these witnesses and Petitioner were not qualified to witness the signatures, Respondents correctly [*3]invalidated the petition because it did not contain sufficient signatures. In order to be a witness to a designating petition, a person must be qualified to sign the petition (Election Law, § 6-132, subd. 3). A person is not qualified to sign a designating petition if he or she has already signed the designating petition of another candidate or slate of candidates for the same office. Sinagra v. Hogan, 97 AD2d 643, 644, (1983) aff'd 60 NY2d 811 (1983) (emphasis in original).

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Respondents are to submit an Order on notice by the end of business today.

JOHN V. CENTRA

Supreme Court Justice

Dated: August 9, 2005

Syracuse, New York