Supreme Court, Queens County

Decided on April 27, 2026

Index No. 711266/2026

Tracy Catapano-Fox, J.

[*1]

The following papers numbered EF-15 to EF-25 read on this motion by Respondent-Candidate ANDREW D. HEVESI for an Order dismissing the Petition of Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate JONATHAN DAVID RINALDI pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7).

Papers Numbered

Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Exhibits EF15-EF22

Affirmation in Opposition, Memorandum EF25

Upon the foregoing papers, and after oral argument, it is ordered this motion is determined as follows:

Respondent-Candidate Andrew D. Hevesi's motion for an Order dismissing the petition of Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate Jonathan David Rinaldi pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) is granted. Petitioner commenced this Special Election proceeding by filing a petition with an Order to Show Cause to invalidate respondent's designating petition in the primary election on June 23, 2026. In lieu of filing an Answer, respondent filed this motion to dismiss.

The petition alleges on March 30, 2026, four volumes of designating petitions were filed at the Board of Elections by respondent as a candidate for the public office of Member of New York State Assembly on the Democratic Party line from the 28th Assembly District in Queens, New York. The petition states on April 6, 2026, simultaneous with the designating petition, respondent also filed a certificate of authorization and a certificate of acceptance, documents that apply solely to candidates who are not enrolled members of the political party in which they seek nomination under Election Law §6-120(3). The petition further alleges the Board of Elections is an administrative body that lacks authority to resolve or interpret conflicting filings to determine which document controls. The petition alleges as respondent's filings are inconsistent, facially defective and invalid, this Court should hold respondent's designating petition invalid and remove respondent from the ballot for the Democratic Party Primary Election on June 23, 2026.

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), and presents the underlying papers, respondent's voter registration, an allegedly fraudulent registration, and an affidavit of merit in support of his motion. Respondent notes on March 30, 2026, he filed his Democratic Designating Petition for the Public Office of Member of the State Assembly from the 28th Assembly District, Queens County, State of New York, in the Democratic Primary Election to be held on June 23, 2026. Respondent argues the next day, he discovered someone fraudulently filed a sham voter registration with the Queens County Board of Elections on February 10, 2026, purporting to change his registration from the Democratic Party to the Working Families Party. On April 1, 2026, respondent filed an affidavit with the Board of Elections attesting the February 10th filing was fraudulent, he never intended to change his party affiliation, and requesting the Board of Elections void the fraudulent document, reinstate his last party registration and correct the voter record to reflect his enrollment in the Democratic Party. Respondent argues the Board of Elections vacated the fraudulent registration and restored his party affiliation to the Democratic Party, after which it accepted his designating petitions.

Respondent argued due to the short time frame and issue regarding registration, the Queens County Democratic Party scheduled a meeting on April 5, 2026, where the District Leaders from the 28th Assembly District filed an authorization and acceptance for respondent to run on the Democratic Party line. He presents the affidavit of merit filed with the Board of Election where he attested he meets all of the requirements to vote in New York and is enrolled in the Democratic Party. He attested he learned on March 31, 2026 that a change of registration bearing his name and address was filed with the Board of Elections on February 10, 2026. He further attested this change of registration was fraudulent, he did not sign or authorize anyone to sign his name to it, and the form included numerous falsehoods, including his lack of a driver's license and social security number. He further attested his affidavit was filed with the Board of Elections, and he requested the change of registration be voided, his prior voter registration be reinstated, and the voter record reflect his enrollment in the Democratic Party. He further argues [*2]once the Board of Elections vacated the fraudulent registration and restored his party registration to the Democratic Party, the Board held the filing of the authorization was not required and the original petition was timely and properly accepted.

Respondent argues the petition to invalidate should be dismissed pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) because it fails to state a valid cause of action. He argues his candidacy is proper and the filing of the authorization by the Queens County Democratic Party was not in conflict and did not invalidate his designating petitions filed on March 30, 2026. Respondent argues his petitions were properly accepted by the Board, and the authorization and acceptance were filed to ensure the validity of his Democratic Party candidacy when confronted with the fraudulent attempt to interfere with the election. He argues petitioner's claim that he violated Election Law because he was a member of the Democratic Party who also filed an authorization and acceptance as a non-member of the Democratic Party under Election Law 6-120(3) is meritless. Respondent further argues once the Board of Elections vacated the fraudulent change of party form and reinstated his prior registration with the Democratic Party, the Board rendered the authorization and acceptance as superfluous and thereby a nullity.

Respondent argues the authorization does not concede he was enrolled in another party, but merely states the Democratic Party district leaders had no objection to and authorized his candidacy on the Democratic Party line. He argues these filings were made because of fraudulent and criminal acts to prevent his candidacy, and out of an abundance of caution that the Board of Elections would not timely correct the fraudulent registration. Respondent argues once the Board acknowledged the change of party affiliation was fraudulently filed, it vacated the fraudulent registration, and restored his registration as a member of the Democratic Party, thereby rendering the certificate of authorization unnecessary and moot. Respondent also argues the petition should be dismissed because it lacks specificity and does not seek to challenge any of the signatures or process in obtaining a sufficient number of valid signatures. He further argues the petition should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, as petitioner failed to comply with the statutory provisions required for proper service. He argues the caselaw presented by petitioner is inapplicable and some cases are fictional and improperly presented to support a meritless argument. Respondent argues he has been the victim of fraudulent, criminal acts against his candidacy, and petitioner should not be able to benefit by alleging his petitions are invalid.

Petitioner opposes the motion and submits a memorandum of law in support of his opposition pursuant to Election Law §16-100, 16-102, and 16-116. He argues his petition states a valid cause of action, and the Court must accept all facts in the petition as true and not resolve factual disputes. Petitioner argues he is challenging respondent's eligibility for ballot access based on statutory compliance at the time of filing, as respondent's filings reflect a legal inconsistency in party enrollment status requiring authorization under Election Law §6-120(3). He argues respondent presents allegations of fraud, administrative correction and factual explanation outside the petition, and disputed facts cannot be considered in a CPLR §3211(a)(7) motion. Petitioner further argues he is not disputing signature validity or Board of Election signature determinations, but challenges respondent's eligibility and statutory compliance.

Petitioner argues respondent's motion should be denied because the petition states a cognizable cause of action under the Election Law challenging respondent's eligibility for ballot access based on statutory inconsistencies in respondent's filings at the time of submission of his designating petition. He argues respondent filed a Democratic Party designating petition while [*3]also filing an authorization and acceptance pursuant to Election Law §6-120(3). Based upon the conflicting filings, petitioner argues there is an issue of fact in dispute that is validly presented in the petition. Petitioner also argues respondent's motion relies on factual assertions outside the four corners of the petition, including allegations of fraud, administrative correction by the Board of Elections, and explanations requiring timing and intent that are disputed and cannot be considered at this early stage. He further argues the filing of the certificate of authorization is not irrelevant or a nullity, but a statutory mechanism applicable only when a candidate is not properly enrolled in the party in which they seek nomination. Petitioner argues respondent cannot simultaneously claim to be a member of the Democratic Party while invoking a statutory provision applicable only to non-members. He further argues even if caselaw citations are "imperfect", dismissal is not warranted where a petition states a valid cause of action. Petitioner further argues respondent's case law is inapplicable as signature-specific pleading requirements are not needed because the petition does not challenge individual signatures or Board signature determinations. Finally, petitioner argues he complied with all service requirements and jurisdiction is therefore proper. Based upon the foregoing, petitioner argues respondent's motion should be denied.

The Board of Elections opposed the petition to invalidate respondent's nominating petitions for the Democratic Party in the June 23, 2026 primary election. The Board noted on April 3, 2026 respondent filed a coversheet and designating petitions for the Working Families Party nomination for the Assembly 28th District. The Board further noted on April 6th a certificate of authorization was filed from the Queens County Democratic Party for respondent-candidate's nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Assembly 28th District, in addition to a timely filed certificate of acceptance. The Board opposes petitioner's argument that respondent's filing of the certificate of authorization and certificate of acceptance created confusion. The Board argues petitioner conceded respondent is a member of the Democratic Party, and therefore since respondent was a member of the Democratic Party when the certificate of authorization was filed, the certificate was a nullity. Furthermore, the Board argues the filing of the certificate of authorization did not create any confusion, but clarified respondent-candidate is running for Assembly-28th District as a Democrat.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7), the claim must be afforded a liberal construction, the facts therein must be accepted as true, and the claimant must be accorded the benefit of every favorable inference. (Brown v. State of New York, 243 AD3d 871, 872 [2d Dept. 2025].) The court can consider evidentiary material, however the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action rather than whether the proponent has stated one. (Id.) A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) must be denied unless it has been shown a material fact as claimed by the pleader is not a fact and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it. (TV Tech Mgrs., Inc. v. Cohen, 227 AD3d 838, 840 [2d Dept. 2024].)

Election Law §6-120(1) states a petition designating a person as a candidate for party nomination in a primary election shall be valid only if the designated person is an enrolled member of the party referred to in the designating petition at the time of the filing of the petition. Election Law §6-120(3) states in relevant part, the members of a designating party committee may authorize designation or nomination of a person as a candidate for office who is not a member of such party.

This action presents a matter of first impression, whether the filing of designating [*4]petitions for a party is inconsistent with filing an authorization under Election Law §6-120(3). It is undisputed that party nominations are an area in which the courts have authority to resolve disputes. (Matter of Amedure v. State of New York, 232 AD3d 48 [3d Dept. 2024].) In analyzing this issue, the Court must consider the purpose of Election Law §6-120(3), which serves to provide access to nomination or designation to a party candidacy for non-party members. In Matter of Master v. Pohanka, the Court of Appeals noted the legislative intent behind Election Law §6-120(3) was to prevent the invasion or takeover of the parties by outsiders. (Matter of Master v. Pohanka, 10 NY3d 620, 626 [2008].) Recently, the Second Department discussed the purpose of Election Law §6-120(3) in Matter of Farrell v. Reid, by holding "a primary purpose of Election Law §6-120(3) is to 'safeguard the integrity of the electoral process and not to defeat elections.'" (Matter of Farrell v. Reid, 131 AD3d 628, 629-630 [2d Dept. 2015].)

Respondent demonstrated prima facie entitlement to dismissal under CPLR §3211(a)(7), as the petition does not state a valid cause of action. Respondent demonstrated the petition inaccurately and improperly seeks relief for what petitioner claims is an inconsistent filing without sufficient basis in law and fact. Respondent demonstrated he has been a registered Democrat and filed nominating petitions as a Democratic Party candidate for the 28th Assembly on March 30, 2026, when he learned a change of party nomination form had been filed without his knowledge or authority. He further demonstrated he proactively sought to address this fraudulent activity and preserve his ability to become designated by the Democratic Party by filing an affidavit of merit with the Board of Elections seeking to vacate the fraudulent filing, and also filed the certificate of authorization and acceptance. Further, the Board of Elections affirmed there was no confusion with regard to the filing of the designating petitions on March 30th and the subsequent certificate of authorization, as once the Board vacated the fraudulent filing, the authorization became void and a nullity. Respondent demonstrated the authorization was not a concession that he was not a member of the Democratic Party, but an acknowledgment that the Democratic Party District Leaders affirmed his candidacy. Respondent demonstrated the filing the certificate of authorization merely confirmed the intent of the Democratic Party and respondent to ensure respondent was the Democratic Party candidate for the 28th Assembly, and was consistent with the purpose and legislative intent of Election Law §6-120(3). (Id. at 630 ["Of paramount importance is that the will of the party committee of the political subdivision involved is expressed"].)

Petitioner failed to sufficiently rebut respondent's arguments. Petitioner's argument that the Election Law must be strictly construed does not create a viable cause of action, as he failed to demonstrate there were facially invalid filings that violated Election Law §6-120(3). Petitioner concedes that respondent is a member of the Democratic Party, and based on that concession the designating petitions would be valid. Therefore, petitioner failed to demonstrate the subsequent filing of the certification of authorization caused legal inconsistencies, as both respondent and the Board of Elections clearly affirmed the legal and proper paperwork showed respondent was a member of and candidate for the 28th Assembly as a Democratic Party candidate. Based on the relevant case law, the filing of both designating petitions as a Democratic Party candidate and a certificate of authorization and acceptance from the Democratic Party did not create any legal inconsistencies. Petitioner's argument that strictly construing Election Law §6-120(3) would require invalidation of respondent's designating petitions is without merit, as there is no plain statutory language to support that conclusion and the act of filing a certificate of authorization is strictly an affirmative action by a political party [*5]asserting its chosen candidate for office.

Petitioner's sole argument whether the subsequent filing of the certificate of authorization somehow invalidated the otherwise proper designating petitions is unsupported by relevant statutory or case law. This Court notes that upon review of the petition, petitioner's citations were either for New York cases that were general election law matters and inapplicable to the facts in this case, or to nonexistent case law. Respondent's argument that the case law petitioner presented was AI hallucinations and fabricated has some merit, but since respondent did not seek sanctions, there is no reason for this Court to render a ruling on this argument.

Finally, petitioner argues respondent, an incumbent Assembly Member, should be fully familiar with the election law and should have checked to see if his party affiliation had been changed prior to filing the certificate of authorization. He further argues challenging candidates, such as himself, are routinely removed from the electoral process due to ministerial errors that render petitions facially deficient. While the Election Law may be cumbersome and strictly construed both administratively and in judicial decisions, the intent is to ensure that the will of the people is upheld and to maintain integrity in our electoral process. As petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action exists under controlling statutory or case law, and fails to rebut respondent's evidence that the will of the Democratic Party District Leaders was effectuated when filing the certificate of authorization to address the unique circumstances of respondent's party status, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.

Accordingly, Respondent-Candidate Andrew D. Hevesi's motion for an Order dismissing the Petition of Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate Jonathan David Rinaldi pursuant to CPLR §3211(a)(7) is granted. It is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate Jonathan David Rinaldi's petition is dismissed.

Dated: April 27, 2026

ENTER:

Hon. Tracy Catapano-Fox, J.S.C.