Preview:

Matter of Amedore v Peterson (2013 NY Slip Op 00163)

Decided January 16, 2013
Matter of Amedore v Peterson, 102 AD3d 995, leave denied.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Lewis & Fiore, New York City (David L. Lewis of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Law Office of James E. Long Esq., Albany (James E. Long of counsel), for Cecilia F.
Tkaczyk, respondent-appellant. Lanny E. Walter, Saugerties, for Barbara Bravo and another, respondents. {**20 NY3d at 1007} OPINION OF THE COURT Appellant-respondent having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a stay in the above causes; and respondent-appellant having moved for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in the above causes; upon the papers filed and due deliberation, it is ordered, that the motions for leave to appeal are denied; and it is further ordered, that the motion for a stay is dismissed as academic. Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Smith and Pigott. Judge Graffeo dissents in an opinion.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2013_00163.htm[4/21/2013 1:06:16 PM] Matter of Amedore v Peterson (2013 NY Slip Op 00163)
Graffeo, J. (dissenting). This case presents a significant issue of statutory interpretation that should be resolved by our Court. Under the current Election Law, we do not have early voting in New York. Every voter must appear at a designated polling place to cast a vote on election day unless the voter falls into one of the few narrow categories for whom alternative voting methods are permitted by statute. We have traditionally required strict compliance with these procedures, even when an inadvertent error by a board of elections has proved detrimental to the voter (see Matter of Gross v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 3 NY3d 251 [2004]).
This case involves a particular alternative voting method

Download 2013_00163.pdf

New York Law