| Matter of Berney v Ragusa |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06434 [76 AD3d 647] |
| August 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Elizabeth Berney, Appellant, v PhilipRagusa et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, in effect, to invalidate apetition designating James Milano as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September14, 2010, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office ofRepresentative in Congress from the 5th Congressional District, the petitioner appeals from afinal order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.), dated August 9, 2010, which,inter alia, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner contends, inter alia, that the respondents improperly issued a certificate ofauthorization to the respondent James Milano, a registered Democrat, permitting him to enter thesubject Republican Party primary pursuant to Election Law § 6-120 (3). Specifically, thepetitioner contends that the Election Law § 6-120 (3) certificate (also known as aWilson-Pakula certificate) was invalid, as the purported Chairman of the Queens CountyRepublican Party, Bart Haggerty, did not receive notice of the meeting at which that certificatewas issued. The respondents submitted evidence showing that the respondent Philip Ragusa waselected the Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party at a Queens County RepublicanParty meeting held on or about October 3, 2009, and that the state-wide Republican Partysubsequently recognized Ragusa as the Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party. Underthese circumstances, in arguing that the Election Law § 6-120 (3) certificate was invalid,the petitioner essentially challenges Ragusa's authority and position as Chairman of the QueensCounty Republican Party. As the Supreme Court correctly determined, that challenge wastime-barred (see Election Law § 16-102 [2]; Matter of Rumsey v Niebel,286 AD2d 564 [2001]; Matter of Green v Kapsis, 283 AD2d 496 [2001]; Matter ofEssenberg v Reape, 272 AD2d 544 [2000]).
The petitioner also alleges that Milano committed fraud in connection with the collection ofsignatures for the designating petition. However, contrary to the petitioner's contention, theallegations in the petition, even if proven, would fail to establish that the entire designatingpetition was permeated with fraud (seeMatter of Perez v Galarza, 21 AD3d 508, 508-509 [2005]; Matter of Fonvil vMichel, 308 AD2d 424, 425 [2003]; Matter of McRae v Jennings, 307 AD2d 1012,1012-1013 [2003]), or that Milano participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of fraud inprocuring signatures for the designating petition (see Matter of Testa v DeVaul, 65 AD3d 651, 652-653 [2009];Matter of McRae v Jennings, 307 AD2d at 1013).[*2]
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without meritor need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Mastro, J.P.,Florio, Dickerson, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.