Supreme Court, Orange County

Decided on March 2, 2026

Index No. EF001756-2026

Kyle C. McGovern, J.

[*1]

The following papers filed electronically were read and considered on the application by Petitioner brought by Order to Show Cause (Mot. Seq. #1) for an Order:

(1) Declaring valid the Independent Nominating Petitions filed with the Village of [*2]Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York designating and/or nominating Tiffany N. Gagliano for the public office of Village Trustee in the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, State of New York, in the General Election to be held on March 18, 2026;

(2) Declaring invalid the purported specific objections to the Independent Nominating Petitions, as filed by Victoria L Peebles with the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York;

(3) Ordering Respondent Orange County Board of Elections to print and place the name of Tiffany N. Gagliano on the official ballots to be used at the March 18, 2026 Election for the public office of Village Trustee in the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, State of New York:

Petitioner's Proposed Order to Show Cause, Verified Petition, Emergency Affirmation, Exhibit A Doc. 1-4

Petitioner's Letter Brief in Support of Validating Petition Doc. 11

Respondent Orange County Board of Elections Verified Answer to Petition and Memorandum of Law in Opposition Doc. 13-14

Respondent Victoria L. Peebles' Verified Answer and Objections in Points of Law, Exhibit A Doc.15-16

Factual Background and Procedural History

Petitioner Tiffany N. Gagliano ("Petitioner"), a candidate for the public office of Village Trustee in the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson for the March 2026 General Election (the "General Election") brings this action to challenge the invalidation of her nominating petition FN1 on the grounds Respondent-Objector Victoria L. Peebles did not serve her with a copy of the specific objections before they were filed with Respondent Orange County Board of Elections.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding on February 20, 2026, against Respondents Orange County Board of Elections ("BOE"), Courtney Canfield Greene and Louise Vandemark, Commissioners, The Village Of Cornwall-on-Hudson, Meagan Gschwind, Clerk/Treasurer ("Village") and Victoria L. Peebles ("Peebles') by the filing of a proposed Order to Show Cause together with a Verified Petition ("the Petition") and supporting documents with the Orange County Clerk's Office.

The Order to Show Cause was signed by the undersigned on February 20, 2026 with February 25, 2026 set as the initial appearance date. The Court directed service be made on respondents BOE and the Village by February 20, 2026 and on Respondent Peebles by February 21, 2026. The Order further directed that any opposition be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 24, 2026 and that all parties appear in person for a hearing in connection with the motion.

In compliance with the Order, on February 24, 2026, the Court received an Answer and Memorandum of Law in Opposition from counsel for Respondent BOE and a Verified Answer and Objections in Points of Law from counsel for Respondent Peebles. By letter dated February 24, 2026, Respondent Village advised it takes no position with respect to Petitioner's claims. The [*3]Court also received a letter brief from counsel for Petitioner in support of the Petition.

Petitioner's contention

Petitioner contends her nominating petition was improperly invalidated and should be validated. She argues she timely filed with Respondent Village independent nominating petitions for the public office of Village Trustee on or about February 10, 2026, containing 14 sheets with 129 total signatures. On the cover sheet to her petitions, Petitioner provided her name and address for the purposes of receiving notices and/or service of objections. On or about February 13, 2026, Respondent-Objector Peebles filed with Respondent Village specific objections to Petitioner's petition for village office but did not serve Petitioner with a copy of the objections, in violation of Election Law §6-154(3) (b), which provides that specifications of objections must be served on the relevant candidate before filing same with the board of elections and that this service on the candidate must occur either by: (i) personal delivery or (ii) by sending via "overnight mail"(or its Election Law 1-106 "overnight" equivalents).

Petitioner further maintains that, according to guidance from the Orange County Board of Elections:

"Specific Objections Six (6) days starts from the time of filing the General Objections by postmark if delivered by mail or timestamp if delivered in person. Specific Objections must be filed at the Orange County Board of Elections. The Objector must provide proof of service of a duplicate of the Specific Objections by overnight mail or proof of personal service to the aggrieved party. Service must occur before or on the date of filing.

Petitioner contends that, despite the lack of service that violated the clear dictates of the Election Law as well as its own procedure, on February 18, 2026, the BOE ruled on objections that were not properly before it and made a determination invalidating Petitioner's nominating petition. The BOE's determination of invalidity was mailed to Petitioner, who claims to have received it on or about February 20, 2026, which she claims was the first notice she received regarding the objections to her petition, and the determination as to those objections. She argues the BOE violated her due process rights and deprived her of an opportunity to be heard in responding to the purported objections, instead ruling her petitions invalid without a hearing or the chance to respond to the purported objections. Petitioner argues the BOE acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional fashion, as it violated Chapter 744 of the Laws of 2022, which amended Election Law §6-154 to require, in response to any specific objections to petitions, an opportunity to be heard, which "may be by written submission or oral presentation in the discretion of such officer or board." Petitioner further argues the BOE should be ordered to invalidate the specific objections for lack of proper service by an unqualified objector and should be ordered to validate her nominating petition and to print and place her name upon the official ballots for the March 18, 2026 election for Village Trustee.

The Board's Response

In its Answer, Respondent BOE denied Petitioner's allegations it ignored the relevant law and ruled on objections that were not properly before it; violated Petitioner's due process rights and failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard in on the objections, instead ruling her petitions invalid without a hearing or chance to respond; acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional fashion.

The BOE contends the instant Petition should be dismissed as village elections are governed by Article 15 of the Election Law, pursuant to which the BOE followed proper [*4]procedure in determining the challenge to the nominating petition.

Specifically, the BOE argues Election Law §15-108(10) is controlling and provides that "written specifications of the grounds of the objections shall be filed with the village clerk . . . " and "The village clerk shall forthwith notify each candidate named in the petition . . . and shall notify the county board of elections . . . ". "Upon receipt of the written specifications as herein required, the county board of elections shall immediately take all steps necessary and consistent with this chapter to render a determination on the questions raised in such objections and specifications. The BOE argues there is no obligation in Section 15-108(10) that a board of elections put any party on notice that it would be making a determination. Rather, pursuant to Section 15-108 it is the obligation of the village clerk to notify the candidate named in the petition. There is also no requirement in Section 15-108 that proof of service of that notification be provided to a board of elections. As to any differing procedure concerning objections, such as that posited by Petitioner pursuant to Election Law §6-154, the BOE contends that procedure governs elections that are overseen and run by the BOE, such as the primary election in June and the general election in November, but that village elections are subject to the procedures set forth in Election Law §15-108.

The Village's Response

Respondent Village indicated by letter to the Court that it was taking no position with respect to Petitioner's challenge to the invalidation of her nominating petition.

Respondent Peebles' response

Respondent Peebles opposes Petitioner's application and denies the factual allegations of the Petition. She argues Petitioner's reliance upon Election Law §6-154(3)(b) is misplaced because this provision governs specifications of objections filed by an objector with a county board of elections, as is the case with non-village elections that are administered by a county board of elections. Respondent Peebles contends the Village continues to administer its own elections under Article 15 of the Election Law and as such, the provision that relates to objections to designating and nominating petitions made in connection with a village-administered election is Section 15-108(10). This section provides, in pertinent part, that:

"A written objection to an independent nominating petition, designating petition or certificate of nomination shall be filed in the office of the village clerk no later than one day following the last date upon which such petition or certificate may be filed or within one day after such petition or certificate is received by the village clerk, if such petition or certificate is mailed as provided by law, whichever is later. Written specifications of the grounds of the objections shall be filed with the village clerk within two days after the filing of the written objection. A failure to file such written specifications shall render the original objection null and void. Upon receipt of such written specification, the village clerk shall forthwith notify each candidate named in the petition or certificate and shall notify the county board of elections of the county in which the village is located...Upon receipt of the written specifications as herein required, the county board of elections shall immediately take all steps necessary and consistent with this chapter to render a determination on the questions raised in such objections and specifications. When a determination has been made by the county board of elections that the petition is sufficient or insufficient, it shall immediately notify the village clerk and each candidate named in the petition or certificate, and, if such determination was made on objection, the objector."

(NY Election Law §15-108[10])

Respondent Peebles argues this provision of the Election Law further does not prescribe a method of notice and asserts Petitioner was notified by the Village Clerk via either telephone or text message very shortly after the objections were filed. Peebles contends she is aware Petitioner sent text messages to various Village residents on February 13, 2026 — the day the specific objections were filed with the Village Clerk — wherein she complained about the specific objections being filed.

Peebles further argues that, to the extent Petitioner will argue Election Law §§6-154(3)(b), 6-212, and 15-108(10) are ambiguous, the sponsor memo for Chapter 744 of the Laws of 2022, which amended the Election Law to include the current provision of Election Law §6-154(3)(b), makes clear that the point of this statute was to amend state law which previously permitted local boards of election to establish their own rules for the service of specific objections for elections administered by the board of elections. Notably, Chapter 744 of the Laws of 2022 did not amend Election Law §6-212 or Election Law §15-108(10) and counsel has not been able to locate any precedent which has applied the requirements of Election Law §6-154(3)(b) to a village-administered election.

Peebles also posits it would be impracticable to do so, as the current state of the Election Law in village-administered elections would not provide the demanded notice or the filing of proof of service as, under Election Law §15-108(10), following receipt of the objections (and only the objections, not proof of service of the objections) the Board of Elections "shall immediately take all steps necessary and consistent with this chapter to render a determination on the questions raised in such objections and specifications."

Peebles argues if Election Law §6-154(3)(b) is improperly applied here, then the law would allow for the proof of service to be received "by the end of two business days following the filing of the specifications". Notably absent from this section is a statement as to with whom the proof of service should be filed. Presumably, the proof of service should be filed with the same board or officer with whom the general objections and specific objections were filed and, in the case of a village-administered election, that would be the village clerk pursuant to Election Law §15-108. However, as noted above, there is no statutory requirement that proof of service be filed with the village clerk or transmitted by the village clerk to the board of elections. Finally, Peebles argues that, given the exceedingly tight timetable required for ballot access in village elections, notably more so than in other elections, it would be error for the Court to add two business days to this schedule, absent a directive from the legislature.

The Court did not permit any Reply to be filed in response to Respondents' opposition.

On February 25, 2026, counsel for all parties appeared before the undersigned as directed in the Order to Show Cause. Petitioner appeared by Attorney Adam Fusco; Respondent Orange County Board of Elections appeared by Attorney William Badura; Respondent Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson appeared by Attorney James Arrabito, and Respondent Victoria L. Peebles appeared by Attorney Michael Treybich. All Respondents affirmed they received the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers as directed by the Court, and the Court accepted the papers received in opposition to the Petition. Following discussion with counsel, the Court heard oral argument as to the parties' respective positions and the hearing was continued on February 26, 2026 with all parties, witnesses, and counsel again present.

Over the course of the hearing, the following exhibits were marked and stipulated into [*5]evidence:

• Village Exhibit #1 - documents consisting of: Petitioner's email to the Village Clerk dated and timed February 13, 2026 at 2:44 p.m. comprising a FOIL request for copies of the specific objections to the 2026 election; the Village Clerk's responsive email to Petitioner dated and timed February 13, 2026 at 3:02 p.m. attaching Respondent Peebles' letter dated February 13, 2026 and including 11 pages of specific objections to Petitioner's Independent Nominating Petition;

• Village Exhibit #2 - Respondent Peebles' letter dated February 13, 2026 and including 11 pages of specific objections to Petitioner's Independent Nominating Petition;

• Village Exhibit #3 — screenshot from Village Clerk's cellphone reflecting incoming call from Deputy Clerk on February 13, 2026 at 2:19 p.m. of 3 minute duration;

• Village Exhibit #4 — screenshot from Village Clerk's cellphone reflecting outgoing call to former Village Mayor James Gagliano on February 13, 2026 on February 13, 2026 at 2:31 p.m. of 3 minute duration;

• Village Exhibit #5 — screenshot from Village Clerk's cellphone reflecting text messages with Petitioner on February 13, 2026 beginning at 2:35 p.m.

• BOE Exhibit #1— Certificate of Acceptance by Candidate, Cover Sheet, 14 pages of Nominating Petitions (numbered 1-14);

• BOE Exhibit #2 — BOE determination letter dated February 18, 2026;

• BOE Exhibit #3 — Correspondence from Petitioner's counsel, Adam Fusco, Esq. dated February 18, 2026 addressed to Respondent Orange County BOE and Village Clerk of Cornwall-on-Hudson concerning the specific objections filed by Respondent Peebles;

• BOE Exhibit #4 — printout of email from Commissioner Courtney Canfield Greene to Village Clerk Meagan Gschwind dated February 18, 2026 at 12:17 p.m. transmitting the BOE determination letter;

• BOE Exhibit #5- printout of email dated February 18, 2026 at 12:55 p.m. from Petitioner's counsel, Adam Fusco, Esq., to Orange County BOE Commissioners Louise Vandemark and Courtney Canfield Greene and Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson Clerk Meagan Gschwind transmitting his letter concerning the specific objections filed by Respondent Peebles.

At the hearing, testimony was given by Jacqueline Masterson, Deputy Clerk for the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson; Meagan Gschwind, Village Clerk of Cornwall-on-Hudson; Orange County Board of Elections Commissioner Louise Vandemark; Respondent Victoria L. Peebles; and Petitioner Tiffany N. Gagliano.

Deputy Clerk Jacqueline Masterson testified she has been employed by the Village for almost two years. She stated that on February 13, 2026 between approximately 2:15 — 2:30 p.m., Respondent Peebles personally visited the Village Hall and handed her for filing objections to Petitioner's nominating petition. She did not recall Ms. Peebles asking her any questions or having asked any questions of Ms. Peebles. She also did not recall telling Ms. Peebles the Village Clerk's office would take care of notifying the appropriate parties. She called the Village Clerk and stamped the objections "Received February 13, 2026 Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson". She denied calling or texting anyone else about having received the objections. Ms. Masterson was shown Village Exhibit #3 that reflected a call at 2:19 p.m. and it confirmed her recollection of placing a call to the Village Clerk at that time on February 13, 2026.

Village Clerk Meagan Gshwind has been the Clerk for the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson for approximately six months and this is her first election cycle in that role. She previously received training from the BOE and the New York Conference of Mayors (NYCOM) regarding how to administer elections. She testified that, after the general objection to Petitioner's nominating petition was filed, she contacted the BOE call center and left a message requesting advice on how to handle specific objections if they were eventually filed, but she never received a response to that request.

On the day in question, Friday, February 13, 2026, she was not in her office in the morning but was on her way there in the afternoon when she received a call from the Deputy Clerk, Jacqueline Masterson. The call came in at 2:19 p.m. and the Deputy Clerk advised she had received specific objections to Petitioner's nominating petition. Ms. Gschwind was shown Village Exhibit #3 that confirmed her recollection of having received a call from the Deputy Clerk at that time on that date. She testified she told the Deputy Clerk to stamp the objections received and that she would handle them when she arrived at the office.

Ms. Gschwind was shown Village Exhibit #4 reflecting an outgoing call from her to former Village Mayor James Gagliano, who is Petitioner's husband, on February 13 at 2:31 p.m. and lasting three minutes. She did not recall the sum and substance of that conversation but testified she would often call the former mayor for assistance with technical matters, such as how to operate the boilers at Village Hall. She was also shown BOE Exhibit #1 and identified James Gagliano's name listed first on the Committee to Fill Vacancies.

Ms. Gschwind was also shown Village Exhibit #5 which reflected text messages between her and Petitioner on February 13 beginning at 2:35 p.m. with an incoming text from Petitioner asking what she should do about the objections to her petition, and continuing with a response from Ms. Gschwind that she was trying to figure out how to handle it and advising Petitioner to submit a FOIL request for specific objections for the Village election. The texts confirm Petitioner agreed to submit the FOIL request and also that she did submit the request. This is further confirmed by Village Exhibit #1 that reflects Petitioner made a FOIL request by email to the Village Clerk at 2:44 p.m. on February 13 and the request was responded to by email from the Village Clerk at 3:02 p.m. that same day, attaching a copy of the specific objections received a little under an hour earlier from Ms. Peebles.

Ms. Gschwind testified she called the BOE call center that afternoon to ask what she should do with the specific objections the Village received. She was told to deliver them in person to the BOE by 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 17, which was the next business day as Monday, February 16, was a federal holiday. On Tuesday, February 17, Ms. Gschwind dropped off at the BOE office the specific objections and also the nominating petition by 9:30 a.m.

Respondent BOE Commissioner Louise Vandemark has been a BOE Commissioner for eighteen years. She testified the BOE does not administer village elections; rather, they only rule on filed objections. She also stated the BOE does not conduct hearings concerning objections filed in connection with village elections and does not notify village election candidates of objections to their petitions as this is the responsibility of the village and not the BOE. She further stated that no proof of service would be filed with the BOE, nor would the BOE be looking for proof of service for this reason. She explained that different rules apply to elections administered by the BOE and village elections, such as this election in the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson. She clarified that, for non-village elections, the BOE will notify all parties if a hearing is to be conducted, which was not the case here.

She testified the BOE received from the Village Clerk the specific objections filed by Respondent Peebles around 9:30 a.m. on February 17, 2026 and was aware the BOE is statutorily required to act immediately but is not required to notify the candidate of the objections. Commissioner Vandemark was shown BOE Exhibit #2 and she confirmed it was the letter signed by her and co-Commissioner Courtney Canfield Greene that was sent to Respondent Peebles and copied to Petitioner and the Village Clerk on February 18, 2026. The letter advised the Board had determined, upon review of the nominating petition, that 83 of the 129 signatures were not dated and another 4 were also invalid since the witness statements did not indicate the number of signatures on the sheet. Therefore, the Board determined the nominating petition contained 42 valid signatures, which was insufficient to meet the requisite minimum 50 signatures for nomination. Accordingly, the BOE advised Petitioner's name would not appear on the ballot for the March 18, 2026 Village Election. Commissioner Vandemark was also shown BOE Exhibit #1 which she recognized as Petitioner's certificate of acceptance, a cover sheet, and the independent nominating petition. When asked if the BOE would have emailed its determination letter to the Petitioner, Commissioner Vandemark responded that, had there been an email address on the acceptance sheet, she would have emailed Petitioner the determination letter as a courtesy, however, there was no email address contained in the documents.

Respondent Victoria L. Peebles testified that on Friday, February 13, 2026 at approximately 2:00 p.m. she went to the Village Hall and advised the Deputy Clerk she was there to file specific objections to Petitioner's nominating petition. She was shown Village Exhibit #2 which she identified as a copy of the specific objections she filed at Village Hall on February 13, 2026. Ms. Peebles testified she asked the Deputy Clerk if there was anything else she needed to do and was told the Village Clerk's office would handle everything else. Ms. Peebles believes she was at Village Hall for approximately five minutes after which she went out to her car and sent a text at 2:07 p.m. indicating she had filed the specific objections.

Petitioner Tiffany Gagliano testified she currently serves as a Trustee for the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson having been appointed by Mayor Kane in April 2025. On or about February 10, 2026, she filed at Village Hall a petition containing 129 signatures nominating her for the office of Trustee for the Village in the general election that will be held on March 18, 2026. Petitioner was shown BOE Exhibit #1 which she identified as her Certificate of Acceptance, cover sheet and 14 pages of comprising her independent nominating petition. Petitioner testified that, on the date in question, February 13, 2026, she heard a rumor there was an objection filed to her nominating petition. While she could not recall who gave her this information, she specifically denied being told by the Village Clerk or by her husband, the former Village Mayor, who was out of state on a work assignment on that day. She believes she heard it from one of two friends but specifically denied that any of her friends worked at Village Hall.

Petitioner acknowledged having texted the Village Clerk at 2:35 p.m. on that day, as reflected in the screenshot of text messages marked as Village Exhibit #5, to ask what she should do about the objections. She further acknowledged she sent a FOIL request by email nine minutes later, at 2:44 p.m. at the suggestion of the Village Clerk in response to her text, and that she received from the Village Clerk an email response to her FOIL request containing the objections eighteen minutes later, at 3:02 p.m., all as reflected in Village Exhibit #1.

With respect to her actions upon receiving the objections at 3:02 p.m. on Friday, [*6]February 13, Petitioner stated it was too late in the afternoon preceding a holiday weekend to take any action with respect to the objections, and her first opportunity to do so was on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, following the three day weekend due to the federal holiday of President's Day on Monday, February 16.

Petitioner declined to discuss what action, if any, she took on February 17 with respect to the objections, citing the privilege of her communication with her attorney. Nevertheless, she stated that on Wednesday, February 18, she contacted BOE Commissioner Courtney Canfield Greene to request an opportunity to be heard with respect to the objections filed by Respondent Peebles. Commissioner Canfield Greene was not present at the hearing and no copy of a message was made available for the Court to review. Petitioner also stated she believes she contacted the Village Clerk on February 18 to ask if anything else had been filed. Petitioner testified she never heard from the BOE until she received the determination letter dated February 18 by mail on either February 19 or February 20.FN2

Discussion

Public confidence in our electoral system is the foundation of American democracy, and it must never be compromised. Shiroff v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 77 Misc 3d 773, 775—76, (Sup. Ct., NY County 2022). To ensure fair and orderly elections and promote public confidence, the New York State Legislature has designed and adopted a comprehensive statutory framework consisting of 17 articles governing the entire electoral process. Id. (citing Matter of Higby v. Mahoney, 48 NY2d 15, 21 [1979]). However, as discussed below, New York's Election Law and its myriad procedures and processes to be followed by State, County, and local boards, and its political candidates, is imperfect. This matter is no exception.

The primary question presented herein is which chapter of Election Law governs the village election at issue, specifically Election Law §6-154 as Petitioner contends, or Section 15-108 as Respondents contend, and what notice provisions apply to specifications of objections to the nominating petition. Of equal significance under these statutes, and reflected through witness testimony, is what agency is responsible for administering the election, in this case the Village versus the BOE, and what rules and procedure apply.

Petitioner argues the law is quite clear that Election Law §6-154 titled "Nominations and designations; objections to" governs the procedures to administer filing and processing of specification of objections to nominating petitions, including the nomination petition for the Village election at issue in this matter. Petitioner cites Election Law §6-154 (3)(b) which provides:

"No specifications of objections to any petition, certificate of nomination or ballot access document will be considered unless the objector filing the specifications personally delivers or mails by overnight mail a duplicate copy of the specification to each candidate for public office named on the petition. (Election Law § 6-154 (3) (b)).

To further support the notice requirements of Chapter 6, Petitioner points to 9 NYCRR 6204.1(b) which she argues mirrors that statute, providing in relevant part, that "[n]o specifications of objections to any petition will be considered by the [State] Board unless the [*7]objector filing the specifications personally delivers or mails by registered or certified mail a duplicate copy of the specification to each candidate for [the] public office named on the petition." Petitioner also contends BOE's own guidelines provide for compliance with the notice provision of Election Law §6-154 providing, in relevant part, "The Objector must provide proof of service of a duplicate of the Specific Objections by overnight mail or proof of personal service to the aggrieved party. Service must occur before or on the date of filing." See, Orange County BOE "Guidelines for General Objections and Specifications."

Petitioner argues, and Respondents do not dispute, that when Respondent Peebles filed her objections with the Village Clerk she did not personally deliver or serve by overnight mail a duplicate copy of her objections to Petitioner. Petitioner contends this failure by Peebles renders her challenge to Petitioner's nominating petition jurisdictionally defective and fatal. See, Amendments the NY Leg Legislature amended Election Law § 6- 154(3)(b), effective March 23, 2023, regarding service of the specifications of objections, the to state that "[n]o specifications of objections to any petition . . . will be considered unless the objector filing the specifications personally delivers by overnight mail a duplicate copy of the specification to each candidate for public office named on the petition."

All Respondents are aligned in their opposition, arguing Petitioner's reliance upon Election Law §6-154(3)(b) is misplaced because this provision governs specifications of objections filed by an objector with a county Board of Elections that is administering the election and not where, as here, a village is administering its own election.FN3 The Court agrees. Both the Village and BOE testified without contradiction that the Village continues to administer its own elections under §15-108 titled "Designation and nomination of candidates". Election Law §15-108(1) specifically provides "Nominations of candidates for elective village offices shall be made as provided in this section." (emphasis provided). Accordingly, a plain reading of the statute establishes objections to designating and nominating petitions made in connection with a village-administered election is Section 15-108(10).

Election Law §15-108(10) provides, in pertinent part, that:

"A written objection to an independent nominating petition, designating petition or certificate of nomination shall be filed in the office of the village clerk no later than one day following the last date upon which such petition or certificate may be filed or within one day after such petition or certificate is received by the village clerk, if such petition or certificate is mailed as provided by law, whichever is later. Written specifications of the grounds of the objections shall be filed with the village clerk within two days after the filing of the written objection. A failure to file such written specifications shall render the original objection null and void. Upon receipt of such written specification, the village clerk shall forthwith notify each candidate named in the petition or certificate and shall notify the county board of elections of the county in which the village is located...Upon receipt of the written specifications as herein required, the county board of elections shall immediately take all steps necessary and consistent [*8]with this chapter to render a determination on the questions raised in such objections and specifications. When a determination has been made by the county board of elections that the petition is sufficient or insufficient, it shall immediately notify the village clerk and each candidate named in the petition or certificate, and, if such determination was made on objection, the objector." (emphasis provided)

(NY Election Law §15-108[10])

There are no cases on point addressing the interplay between Election Law §6-154(3)(b) and Election Law §15-108(10) that is raised in this proceeding. There is, however, guidance from caselaw, including cases relied upon by Petitioner, which support the holding that the applicable standard for processing objections in village administered elections is governed by Article 15, and those administered by a county Board of Elections are governed by Article 6.

Petitioner cites to Matter of Hernandez v. Lafayette, 131 AD3d 633, 635 (2d Dept. 2015) and Matter of Clarke v. Bd. of Elections, 2025 NY Slip Op 32276[U] (Sup Ct, Kings Co. 2025) for their holdings that no specifications of objections to any petition will be considered unless, pursuant to §6-154(3)(b), the objector shows proof of service of their objections were made to aggrieved candidate. However, both Hernandez and Clarke involved City Council elections where the board of elections were administering the elections and the objections, requiring compliance with §6-154(3)(b).

At the hearing, Petitioner additionally cited Morgia v. Jefferson County Bd. of Elections, 80 Misc 3d 453 (Sup. Ct. Jefferson Co. 2023) where the Court applied Elections Law §6-154 to determine the sufficiency of an objection in a village mayoral election. This holding carries little precedential value because the village mayoral election in Morgia was being administered by the county board of elections and not by the village. Further, Morgia involved no challenge to or discussion of the sufficiency of service of the objection.

This Court holds the provisions of Elections Law §15-108 are controlling and govern the filing and adjudication of objections to nominating petitions made in connection with a village-administered election such as the one at issue herein. Moreover, as demonstrated by testimonial and documentary evidence, the Village, BOE and Peebles all acted in compliance with the procedures set forth Section 15-108(10).

Specifically, the evidence demonstrates that at approximately 2:00pm on February 13, 2026, Respondent Peebles filed her specific objections to Petitioner's nominating petition with the Village Clerk, in compliance with Section 15-108(10).FN4 Under that section, there are no further service or notice requirements required of Peebles to Petitioner. Rather, in accordance with Section 15-108(10), as the administrator of the Village election, the Village Clerk must "forthwith" notify the candidate named in the petition and notify the county BOE which, as the testimony and timeline demonstrates, was completed.

According to the testimony and text messaging, the timeline on February 13, 2026 was as follows:

-2:00 p.m. - Respondent Peebles filed her specific objections at Village Hall with the Deputy Clerk;

-2:19 p.m. - Deputy Clerk contacts Village Clerk, who advises she will handle it when [*9]she arrives at Village Hall;

-2:35 p.m. - Petitioner, allegedly having heard a rumor objections were filed, contacts the Village Clerk asking about the objections and is immediately advised to send a FOIL request;

-2:44 p.m. - Petitioner sends a FOIL request;

-3:02 p.m. - Village Clerk responds to Petitioner's FOIL request, sending a copy of objections filed one hour earlier.

Petitioner argues she was never noticed or served with Peebles' objections despite having received a copy by email within one hour of the Village's receipt of the objections. Petitioner's argument that she obtained the objections only in response to a FOIL request, as opposed to being served them by Peebles or by the Village, is not persuasive. During cross-examination, Petitioner refused to acknowledge her possession of the objections as of approximately one hour after they were filed. Instead, Petitioner repeatedly insisted she was never given legal notice of the objections. Petitioner's receipt of the objections within an hour of filing satisfies the Village's obligation to notify her "forthwith" pursuant to Section 15-108(10). The Court agrees with Respondent's argument the FOIL request, made at the behest of the Village Clerk within mere minutes of the Village's receipt of the objections, does not serve to defeat the Village's obligation to notify Petitioner "forthwith". Indeed, the extremely narrow timeframe within which the objections were ultimately sent to Petitioner cannot possibly be construed as anything other than prompt, and the Court rejects Petitioner's attempt to portray the Village as dilatory or in any way in violation of its obligation under Section 15-108(10) merely because the objections were provided to her in response to her rapidly issued FOIL request.

As to the BOE's review of Respondent Peebles' objections, BOE Commissioner Vandemark testified that, in accordance with Section 15-108, after the Village Clerk personally delivered the objections to the BOE on morning of February 17, 2026, the BOE "immediately" reviewed the objections and prepared a determination letter sustaining most of Peebles' objections and finding that Petitioner did not have enough valid signatures (minimum of 50 required) to have her name appear on the ballot for March 18, 2026. This determination letter was issued on February 18, 2026 by mail to Respondent Peebles with a copy to Petitioner and was also sent by email to the Village Clerk at 12:17 p.m. on that day. Accordingly, the Court finds the BOE's determination was properly conducted and will not be invalidated.

In her Petition and throughout this hearing, Petitioner protested she was deprived of her constitutional right to due process when the BOE issued its February 18, 2026 determination without reviewing her response to Peebles' objections. To the extent Petitioner does seek to challenge the due process and constitutionality of these Election Law statutes, such a constitutional challenge is not properly before the Court in this special proceeding, as it was not made upon proper notice to the New York State Attorney General's Office. See, Carter v. Carter, 58 AD2d 438, 439 (2d Dept. 1977); NY Executive Law §71.

During summation, Petitioner's counsel argued due process dictates Petitioner should have been put on notice if there was objection to her ballot access and she should not be "punished" for having reached out to the Village Clerk and making a FOIL request to receive a copy of the objections, which FOIL response she insists does not constitute proper notice. Conversely, Respondents argued the issuance of a FOIL request by Petitioner, within mere minutes after the Village Clerk received the objections from Peebles, does not negate the fact [*10]that the Village did in fact provide Petitioner with the specific objections in a timely manner. The Court agrees and, as discussed herein, holds the Village met its obligation to notify Petitioner "forthwith" pursuant to Section 15-108(10) by emailing her a copy of the objections within one hour of their filing. Petitioner's contention she was "completely left in the dark" as to the objections against her nominating petition strains credulity and is likewise rejected.

As all political candidates know, the election process is a fast-moving process wherein everything, including the processing and determining of objections, is done on an expedited basis. Petitioner, a practicing attorney and sophisticated candidate, was undoubtedly aware of the very short timeframes for processing and adjudicating objections in village elections. Despite this knowledge, for reasons still unclear to the Court, Petitioner waited until the afternoon on February 18, 2026 to file her response to Peebles' objections, which was ultimately after the BOE had already issued its determination letter and therefore, Petitioner's response was not considered. Given this demonstrated timeline, this Court finds no justification for invalidating the determination of the BOE.

Conclusion

It is the finding of this Court that, upon the record reviewed, there is no basis to declare the objections to Petitioner's nominating petition invalid. Accordingly, the Court declines to direct the Respondent Orange County Board of Elections to place Petitioner's name on the official ballots to be used at the March 18, 2026 Election for the public office of Village Trustee in the Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner's application (Mot. Seq. #1) for an Order directing the relief requested in the Petition is DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated: March 2, 2026

E N T E R

HON. KYLE C. McGOVERN, J.S.C.