IN THE MATTER OF VITO J. SETTINERI, ET AL., RESPONDENTS,v. ROBERT J. DICARLO,
ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ARTHUR BRAMWELL, PROPOSED
INTERVENOR. (PROCEEDING NO. 1) / IN THE MATTER OF PHILLIP A. DONOHUE, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS, v. ROBERT J. DICARLO, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS,
ARTHUR BRAMWELL, PROPOSED INTERVENOR. (PROCEEDING NO. 2)
82 N.Y.2d 813, 624 N.E.2d 683, 604 N.Y.S.2d 546 (1993).
November 1, 1993
2 No. 272 (1993 NY Int. 209)
Decided November 1, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Robert S. Meyers, for Appellants DiCarlo, et al.
Submitted by John N. Ciampoli, for Appellants Igneri, et al.
Submitted by Jeffrey T. Buley, for Appellants Powers, et al.
Submitted by Aaron D. Maslow, for Respondents Settineri, et al.
Submitted by John M. Leventhal, for Respondents Donohue, et al.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J. (dissenting):
I dissent from the decision to reverse the order of the Appellate
Division and to permit an outgoing Chairman of the Kings County
Republican Party to nominate himself as the Republican candidate for
Senator in the 23rd Senatorial District.
The issue here is who has the authority to nominate a Republican
candidate for the New York State Senate where a vacancy occurs too
late for the normal petitioning process to take place. Under those
circumstances the rules of the Republican Party permit the county
chairperson(s) (in this case the chairpersons of Kings and Richmond
County) to select the candidate for the 23rd Senatorial District.(n
1) This procedure, of course, is subject to the requirements of the
Election Law. In the Appellate Division, the contention of the
petitioners was that because a primary election had been held and a
new county committee selected, that committee had the right to elect a
new chairman who would then select the candidate for the senate. The
respondents contended that because there was insufficient time to
organize the new county committee before the name of the senate
candidate was required to be filed, the outgoing Chairman had the
right to choose the candidate and he properly chose himself.
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF VITO J. SETTINERI, ET AL., RESPONDENTS,v.
ROBERT J. DICARLO,
ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, ARTHUR BRAMWELL, PROPOSED INTERVENOR.
(PROCEEDING NO. 1)
RESPONDENTS, v. ROBERT J. DICARLO, ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS,
I dissent from the decision to reverse the order of the Appellate Division and to permit an
The issue here is who has the authority to nominate a Republican candidate for the New York
Under those circumstances the rules of the Republican Party permit the county chairperson(in
In the Appellate Division, the contention of the petitioners was that because a primary
four certificates nominating Robert DiCarlo were filed with the Board of Elections.
Members of the county committee "shall hold office until the next election at which members
It follows that, as stated by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, the outgoing
Second, at the heart of this case, in this computer age, is the factual issue of whether the
Order reversed, without costs, and petitions dismissed for reasons stated in the dissenting
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and Levine concur.
|
