IN RE WILLIAM CASS, 13 N.Y.3d 118 (2009)

2009 NY Slip Op 06301, 914 N.E.2d 140, 885 N.Y.S.2d 448

In the Matter of A. WILLIAM CASS, Appellant, v. STEPHAN L. KRAKOWER, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

No. 179.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued August 25, 2009.
Decided August 26, 2009.

APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered August 20, 2009. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Christine A. Sproat, J.), as had denied respondent Stephan L. Krakower’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to join a necessary party and granted the petition to the extent of invalidating the petition for an opportunity to ballot; (2) granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to join a necessary party; (3) dismissed the proceeding; and (4) directed the Dutchess County Board of Elections to conduct a primary election on September 15, 2009 giving members of the Conservative Party an opportunity to write in the name of a person for nomination as the candidate of the Conservative Party for the public office of Member of the Town Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie for Ward 5.

Matter of Cass v Krakower, 65 AD3d 637, affirmed.

Page 119

John Ciampoli, Albany, for appellant.

David A. Sears, Poughkeepsie, for respondent.

Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.

Election Law §§ 6-164 and 6-166 collectively require that an opportunity to ballot petition shall set forth the names of persons constituting a “committee to receive notices” and that “[a]ll required notices shall be served on the members of the committee named in the petition.” Here, petitioner, the aggrieved candidate, failed to serve or provide any notice of the present proceeding to the Committee to Receive Notices. Thus, the Appellate Division properly reversed Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss (65 AD3d 637 [2009]).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In per curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.

Page 120