| Matter of Imre v Johnson |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06661 [54 AD3d 427] |
| August 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Christine A. Imre, Respondent, v Craig M.Johnson, Appellant, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petitiondesignating Craig M. Johnson as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 9,2008, for the nomination of the Working Families Party as its candidate for the public office ofState Senator for the 7th Senatorial District, in which Craig M. Johnson filed a cross petition tovalidate certain signatures found invalid by the Nassau County Board of Elections, Craig M.Johnson appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court,Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated August 8, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted the petition,invalidated the designating petition, restrained the Nassau County Board of Elections fromplacing his name on the ballot, and dismissed the cross petition as untimely.
Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
"In the absence of a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a trial judge is thesole arbiter of the need for recusal, and his or her decision is a matter of discretion and personalconscience" (Schwartzberg vKingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr., Inc., 28 AD3d 465, 466 [2006], citing People vMoreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). The appellant failed to set forth demonstrable proof ofbias sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the Supreme Court Justice's refusal to recuse herselfwas an improvident exercise of discretion (see Schwartzberg v Kingsbridge Hgts. Care Ctr.,Inc., 28 AD3d at 466; Modica vModica, 15 AD3d 635, 636 [2005]; Matter of Firestone v Siems, 272 AD2d 544,545 [2000]; Manhattan School of Music v Solow, 175 AD2d 106, 108-109 [1991]).
The Supreme Court properly invalidated the 17 signatures that were witnessed by notary[*2]public Kevin Rantz and three of the signatures that werewitnessed by notary public David Yellin. The record shows that Rantz and Yellin had neithertaken the oaths of these signatories nor obtained any statements from them as to the truth of thestatements to which they subscribed their names (see Matter of Helfand v Meisser, 22NY2d 762 [1968]; Matter of Donnelly v Dowd, 12 NY2d 651 [1962]; Matter ofLeahy v O'Rourke, 307 AD2d 1008, 1009 [2003]; Matter of Merrill v Adler, 253AD2d 505 [1998]; Matter of Zunno v Fein, 175 AD2d 935 [1991]; Matter of Andolfiv Rohl, 83 AD2d 890 [1981]; see also CPLR 2309 [b]). Consequently, the appellant'sdesignating petition did not contain a sufficient number of valid signatures.
In light of the foregoing, the appellant's remaining contentions do not warrant reversal.Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Miller, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.