Petitioners-Candidates Deborah Kozak, Felice Kozak, Andrew Kozak, Laura Porzio, Graham McLachlan, John A. Fabricatore, Charlene A. Fabricatore, Benjamin A. Glasser, Anne E. Glasser, Olivia R. Proenca, Jose A. Proenca, Joana R. Proenca, Patricia A. Chach, John Chach, Maria Avgerakis, George H. Avgerakis, Lorraine Lozito, Peter G. Lozito, Luciano [*2]Persichilli, Sherry E. Grimes, Sandra A. Coreth, Robert F. Coreth, Trudy Byrnes, Kevin O'Rourke and Carlos O. Colon (collectively, Petitioners), bring this election law proceeding seeking to validate the designating petitions of the Petitioners filed with the Respondent Westchester County Board of Elections (Respondent, or BOE), nominating Petitioners as candidates for the party position of Westchester County Republican Committee member for the Primary Election to be held on June 24, 2025.

After oral argument/hearing held on April 22, 2025, and the review of all the submissions and evidence, the petitioners' application is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

On April 3, 2025, petitioners filed designating petitions with the respondent. The petitions nominated each petitioner for the Public Office described as "WC Rep. Committeeman," for the County Committee Election District in Yonkers Ward listed. For example, on "Republican Party Designating Petition, City of Yonkers, County of Westchester, State of New York," which is the statutory form seeking signatures in support of the petitioner Deborah Kozak, she was listed as Deborah Kozak, who is seeking the public office or party position of WC Rep. Committeeman Ward 6 ED 10. The cover page submitted to the BOE for Deborah Kozak's designating petition listed her name, and the public office/party as Westchester County Republican Committee Ward 6 District 10.

Respondent made determinations on or around April 10, 2025 that petitioners would not appear on the Primary Election ballot because their petitions were invalid. For example, Deborah Kozak received the following letter: "This Board is in receipt of a petition filed on April 3, 2025, purporting to nominate you for the Public Office of WC Rep. Committeeman, Ward 6 ED 10. Inasmuch as no such office exists, the Board of Elections has found your petition to be invalid."

On April 14, 2025, petitioners moved by order to show cause to validate the designating petitions. The petition states that the petitioners are qualified for the positions they seek and that the designating petitions contain more than the number of required signatures. Further, the designating petitions are purportedly in proper form and the description of the party position is sufficiently informative under Election Law § 6-132. Finally, according to petitioners, upon information and belief, no specifications or objections were filed challenging the validity of the designating petitions.

Respondent answered on April 18, 2025. In the first defense and objection in point of law, respondent alleges that the proceeding must be dismissed, as petitioners failed to name and serve, to thereby make as parties to this proceeding, any of the objectors to the Designating Petitions. In the remainder of the defenses and objections in point of law, respondent alleges that the designating petitions are facially defective, as the description of the party position of public office sought by the petitioners in the designating petitions does not exist and/or cannot be reasonably identified.

During oral argument, respondent advised the Court that when it received the designating petitions, they were immediately rejected as invalid. Respondent argued that the petitions failed to properly identify the public office sought under Election Law § 6-132. Although respondent conceded that the information on the cover sheet submitted to the BOE with the petition may contain enough information to satisfy Election Law § 6-132, that sheet is not shown to the signers/voters. Thus, when the voters were asked to sign in support of the proposed candidate, they were shown only the party office listed as WC Rep. Committeeman Ward__ED__. Respondent argued that to comply with the Election Law, the Public Office/Party Position on the [*3]petition should state Member of the Westchester County Republican Committee for Ward #, District #. It noted that even if the designating petition stated Westchester County Republican Committee, it would have been acceptable. However, the public office title as listed on the petition presented to the respondent does not exist in the County and fails to properly identify the party position sought. According to respondent, the description of the party position, as it stands, is capable of confusing the voters. It claims voters do not have personal knowledge as to what WC or Rep. stands for and could possibly identify the abbreviations as, for example, Women's Club, Women's Council or Representative.

Respondent also asserted that there were objectors to the designating petitions. It argued that the petition should be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective, as petitioners failed to name and serve these objectors. Respondent noted that the specifications of objections challenged the validity of the designating petitions on the same basis as the BOE; namely, as being facially defective.

Petitioners argued that the respondent improperly invalidated the designated petitions, as the description of the party position was sufficiently informative as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusion. They claimed that there was no exact formula by which the name of the office must be presented. According to petitioners, viewing the designating petitions as a whole, it is reasonable for the signers or voters to understand that WC stands for Westchester County and that Rep. stands for Republican. As an example, the full county name Westchester is pre-printed twice on every sheet and the full party name Republican is pre-printed 26 times on every sheet. Further, Rep. is a common abbreviation for Republican. Lastly, petitioners argued that Yonkers is the only municipality in Westchester using the Ward system to define Election District, so it was unnecessary to include the City of Yonkers in the party position description.

Petitioners also argued that objectors are not necessary parties to this proceeding as the candidates were removed directly by the BOE and that the objections were not the basis of the removal. They also claimed that the petitioners were not served with the objections until after they filed the instant order to show cause.

After oral argument, the Court was provided with a copy of the letters received by petitioners advising them that the BOE found the petition to be invalid. This letter was dated April 10, 2025. There were a few letters sent to petitioners, advising them of a set of Specifications of Objections filed against them. However, these letters were dated on or around April 16, 2025, which is after the instant order to show cause was filed. Nevertheless, the letters informed petitioners, "please be advised that the Board has ruled these petitions Invalid since the petitioners list the office of WC Rep Committeeman. Inasmuch as no such office exists, the petition is invalid."

"Election Law § 6-132 (1) requires that each sheet of a designating petition state the public office or party position sought by the candidate." Matter of Notholt v Nassau County Bd. of Elections, 131 AD3d 641, 642 (2d Dept 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are two components to the description of a public office or party position; "the title of the office and the geographic boundaries of the area represented by the office." Id. However, "the name of the office which a candidate is seeking to occupy may be described in various ways." Dipple v Devine, 218 AD2d 918, 918 (3d Dept 1995). Courts have deemed a description to be adequate "so long as the petition, read as a whole, is sufficiently informative . . . so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections." Matter of Notholt v Nassau County Bd. of Elections, 131 AD3d at 642-643 (internal quotation [*4]marks omitted).

The Court finds that the description on the designating petition, "WC Rep. Committeeman Ward ___, ED___," does not adequately describe the party position petitioners are running for and is capable of confusing the signers or voters. While the name of the office may be described in many ways, when reading the designating petition one cannot reasonably determine that WC stands for Westchester County or that Rep. stands for Republican. In fact, "WC," commonly refers to "Water Closet,"^[FN1] and could also, for example, stand for "Women's Club." Further, although petitioners argue that Rep is a common abbreviation for Republican, it could also be misconstrued as Representative, Representing or Republic.

Respondent does not appear to have an issue with respect to listing a Ward and District number and not adding the City of Yonkers to the Party Position. Nonetheless, the Court agrees that one cannot determine by reading the designating petition seeking the office of: "WC Rep. Committeeman Ward ___, ED___," that petitioners intend to run for the party position of Westchester County Republican Committee member. See e.g. Matter of Bliss v Nobles, 297 AD2d 457, 458 (3d Dept 2022) ("Unlike other cases where an omission of either the geographic territory or title of public office sought could be discerned by recourse to the designating petition as a whole, we do not find that the required information omitted here could be adequately gleaned"); see also Hicks v Egan, 166 AD2d 735, 735 (2d Dept 1990) (internal citation omitted) ( "It is now well settled that although substantial compliance with the Election Law is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance as to matter of prescribed content"). Accordingly, the Court will not disturb respondent's ruling with respect to invalidating the designating petitions.

Alternatively, respondent seeks to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that no objectors were properly joined as parties. Under the circumstances, as set forth below, the Court does not find the proceeding to be jurisdictionally defective. At the outset, Election Law § 6-154 (1) sets forth that "[a]ny petition or certificate filed with the officer or board charged with the duty of receiving it shall be presumptively valid if it is in proper form and appears to bear the requisite number of signatures, authenticated in a manner prescribed by this chapter." Here, however, the record indicates that the instant petition was not presumptively valid, and was invalidated as facially defective prior to any specifications of objections.

Taking the issue aside of whether the objections were timely and/or properly served on petitioners, the Court finds that petitioners were not required to name and serve the persons who filed objections to the designating petition. The Court of Appeals has held that where, like here, an objector's objections were not reviewed by the Board of Elections, "[t]he failure to join the objector . . . is not fatal." Straniere v Cutolo, 42 NY2d 984, 986 (1977). Further, the respondent testified that the objections received were the same as those proffered by the respondent; namely, that the party office did not exist. Therefore, the objectors' interests were sufficiently represented by the respondent at the hearing. See e.g. Id. ("Under the circumstances of this case the objector Molinaro is not a necessary party since the aggrieved candidate himself has presented the issues for review"). Finally, if petitioners ultimately file designating petitions in compliance with Election Law § 6-132, there will be an opportunity for anyone interested to file written objections.

All other arguments raised on this petition and evidence submitted by the parties in [*5]connection thereto have been considered by this court notwithstanding the specific absence of reference thereto.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the ruling of the Westchester County Board of Elections finding the Designating Petitions to be invalid, is upheld, and the Verified Petition of the Petitioners-Candidates to validate the Designating Petitions designating them as candidates for the party position of Westchester County Republican Committee member for the Primary Election to be held on June 24, 2025, is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.