Supreme Court, Westchester County

Decided on April 28, 2026

Index No. 62309/2026

William J. Giacomo, J.

[*1]

In a special proceeding brought pursuant to Article 16 of the Election Law, Petitioner-Objectors John Fava and Joseph P. Diaferia and Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate David J. Tubiolo brought a proceeding to invalidate the designating petition purporting to designate Respondent-Candidate Bebe Ahmed, as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Westchester County Legislator for County Legislative District 14 in the June 23, 2026, Republican Party Primary Election.

Papers Considered NYSCEF DOC NO. 1-20; 27-29

1. Petition/Exhibits A-B/ Affirmation/Order to Show Cause/Affirmation of Service/Amended Petition/Exhibits A-C

2. Correspondence with the Court

3. Post-Trial Briefs

FACTUAL AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2026, Respondent Westchester County Board of Elections received Ahmed's designating petition. Shortly thereafter, Fava and Diaferia filed written objections. Petitioners then commenced this proceeding to invalidate the designating petition on the ground, among others, that it was permeated with fraud.

This Court held a hearing on April 24, 2026. At the outset, the Court rejected Ahmed's claims for lack of jurisdiction, and found, after a traverse hearing, that Ahmed had been properly served with the petition. Ahmed's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (motion sequence 002), was denied on the record. The Court notes that, after properly serving the petition, petitioners uploaded an amended petition to NYSCEF, providing more specificity to their objections. Petitioners mailed Ahmed the amended petition by mail, fed ex overnight. Therefore, the Court has considered the amended petition in rendering this Decision and Order.^FN1

According to the Board of Elections, 321 valid signatures are required for the position in question. The Board of Elections reviewed Ahmed's designating petition, which contained 575 signatures. Out of those 575 signatures, 95 were found to be invalid, leaving 480 valid signatures. The Board of Elections testified that it "looks at whatever the specific objections that were listed by the objector. . .. For example . . . if a voter is not registered in the party, proper research is done by a Democrat and Republican. . . . The Board does not rule on fraud. It has to come to the Court." Hence, on its face, the Board of Elections found the designating petition valid.

Petitioners called five witnesses, who all testified, in sum and substance, that they signed the designating petition on behalf of themselves and for a family member(s). The first witness, [*2]Sean Coughlan, testified regarding sheet number 42 of the designating petition. He testified that he signed his name, his wife's name and then his daughter's name on the petition. He testified that he was the only one of his family who was present with the subscribing witness, who allegedly advised Coughlin that he could sign on behalf of his wife and daughter, even though they were not present. Brandon Neider was listed as the subscribing witness on page 42. Coughlan testified that he was not paying attention to the witness when he was signing the petition. Coughlan did not recognize Neider, who was present in the Courtroom. He specifically testified, "[o]nce again, I am not too sure who was there."

Marylyn Polansky's signature appears on page 4 of volume 2 of the Ahmed designating petition. She testified that when the subscribing witness came to her door, she signed the designating petition and then signed on behalf of her husband, Jay Polansky, who had been upstairs in the house at the time. Marylyn Polansky testified that the subscribing witness advised her that she could sign on behalf of her husband, who was recuperating upstairs. She testified that Jay Polansky was aware that she signed his name. Jay Polansky also testified at the hearing that after Marilyn signed the petition, she told him that a gentleman advised her that it was ok for Marilyn to sign his name on his behalf. The subscribing witness on that petition sheet was listed as Thomas J. Keller, who was not present in the Courtroom, nor was he asked to testify.

Idilio Castaneda testified via video that his wife signed his name on page 63 of Ahmed's petition. He testified that he was in the basement when the subscribing witness rang the doorbell. His wife signed the petition and then advised him that she signed for both of them. The subscribing witness was Bebe Ahmed. Castaneda did not see who rang his doorbell. Castaneda's wife did not testify, nor did she submit a sworn affidavit.

Mary Hashim also testified via video that she signed the Ahmed petition for herself and for her husband on page 19, although her husband was not present. She testified that she did not know who presented the petition to her to sign. Bebe Ahmed was listed as the subscribing witness. Hashim testified that two women came to her door. She testified, "I ask if I could sign, one of them said no, one of them said yes, she could sign. So that's why I signed." Hashim could not identify Ahmed as one of the women who came to her door. She testified that one of the women said that she could not sign. "One was on my right, one on my left, I was on my door [sic]. The woman on my right one, she said, you can't sign. The one on my left, she said yes, you could sign." Ahmed questioned the witness and asked her, would you be able to say that I, Bebe Ahmed, said you can sign or you cannot sign? And Hashim testified that she could not.

Ahmed, appearing pro se, cross examined each of the witnesses. The witnesses testified it was their signatures on the designating petitions. Coughlan testified that he did not recognize Neider as the subscribing witness. None of the witnesses recognized Ahmed. Ahmed herself did not testify, nor did she have any witnesses.

Petitioners argue that Ahmed was the subscribing witness on the sheets of the petitions where both Castaneda and Hashim's names appear. According to petitioners, Ahmed allegedly falsely swore to witnessing at least four signatures: two times as a candidate on her own petition and two times a witness on Neider's petition.

Ahmed argues that petitioners are unable to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence, as among other things, Castaneda's testimony is hearsay. Moreover, according to Ahmed, petitioners cannot prove that fraud occurred in the one instance where Hashim alleged that Ahmed was the subscribing witness who accepted her signature and a signature on behalf of her husband.

DISCUSSION

Fraud

A petitioner seeking to invalidate a designating petition on the basis of fraud must prove fraud "by clear and convincing evidence." Matter of Robinson v Edwards, 54 AD3d 682, 683 (2d Dept 2008). Further, "[a] candidate's designating petition will be invalidated on the ground of fraud where there is a showing that the entire designating petition is permeated with fraud, or where the candidate has participated in, or is chargeable with, knowledge of the fraud even if there are a sufficient number of valid signatures on the remainder of the designating petition. Matter of Sgammato v Perillo, 131 AD3d 648, 650-651 (2d Dept 2015) (internal citations omitted).

In their initial objections, petitioners had alleged that the designating petition was invalid for a number of reasons. For example, petitioners alleged that some of the signers have not registered from residences stated in the petition or were not qualified Republican electors. During the hearing, a representative from the Board of Elections testified that it reviewed the petition, including whether or not a voter is registered for a particular party. After performing its review, the Board concluded that Ahmed's petition required 321 signatures and that 480 remained valid. Thus, the sole issue presented to the Court during the hearing, and the sole issue remaining, is whether the petition should be invalidated due to fraud.

The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and the transcript from the hearing. It is well settled that "[a] hearing court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to deference, as that court had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses." Matter of Mack v Wallace, 216 AD3d 856, 857 (2d Dept 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). As set forth below, the Court finds that petitioners failed to make a prima facie showing that Ahmed participated in fraudulently procuring signatures for her designating petition or that the petition is permeated with fraud.

As noted, Castaneda testified via video that his wife signed his signature on his behalf. However, Castaneda's testimony cannot support a fraud claim, as he did not witness the interaction between the subscribing witness and his wife. His wife did not testify. In addition, the witness was clearly confused during the hearing and appeared to be guided off screen.

Nor does Hashim's testimony establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ahmed committed fraud. Hashim testified that two women came to her door. One woman allegedly told Hashim that she could not sign on behalf of her husband, and then one woman said that she could. Hashim ultimately signed on behalf of her husband. Hashim did not recognize Ahmed at all, let alone as the woman who told her she could sign for her husband. Although Ahmed was the subscribing witness for this sheet, petitioners failed to establish that Ahmed was aware that Hashim decided to sign her husband's name despite the warning. Accordingly, the Court finds that "petitioners did not meet their burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the entire designating petition was permeated with fraud. Furthermore, the petitioners presented no evidence that [Ahmed] participated in or had knowledge of any fraudulent activities." Matter of Powell v Tendy, 131 AD3d 645, 646 (2d Dept 2015) (internal citations omitted).

In addition, Courts have held that while candidates are held to a higher standard than noncandidates under the Election Law, "a single instance of fraud by a candidate does not necessarily require the invalidation of an entire otherwise-sufficient designating petition as a matter of law." Matter of Felder v Storobin, 100 AD3d 11, 16 (2d Dept 2012). For example, the Court in Matter of Felder v Storobin, supra, held the following, in relevant part:

"We are not persuaded that the existence of a seemingly illegible signature of one person upon a designating petition, alongside a name and residential address of another person, meets Felder's prima facie burden with respect to a showing of fraud, as the documentary evidence fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the single irregularity was a product of knowing or intentional fraud on the part of the witnessing candidate. . . . . Felder failed to establish the requisite wrongful intent merely by adducing evidence of Storobin's careless and erroneous placement of Danger's name and address upon the designating petition."

In sum, the Court finds that "[a]ny irregularity in this single signature does not render the entire petition permeated with fraud." Perez v Galarza, 21 AD3d 508, 509 (2d Dept 2005); see also Matter of Fatata v Phillips, 140 AD3d 1295, 1296-1297 (2d Dept 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (Even assuming that the two signatures at issue are invalid, petitioners failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Phillips acted fraudulently or did anything that would warrant invalidating the entire designating petition"); compare Matter of Sgammato v Petrillo, 131 AD3d at 651 ("Here, the Supreme Court determined that Shapiro, the subscribing witness with respect to 147 signatures, had fraudulently and knowingly signed and submitted false witness statements, and that Spring [the candidate] was a party to the fraud").

Courts have held that "where the irregularities in the petition are not found by clear and convincing evidence to have been the result of fraud, only the invalid signatures or improperly subscribed designating sheets should be stricken." Matter of Robinson v Edwards, 54 AD3d at 683-683. Thus, upon review, striking two signatures in Ahmed's designating petition, or even striking two sheets in the petition as invalid, still leaves Ahmed with a sufficient number of valid signatures to support her petition.

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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that that Petitioner-Objectors John Fava and Joseph P. Diaferia and Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate David J. Tubiolo's petition seeking to invalidate the designating petition of Respondent-Candidate Bebe Ahmed, as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Westchester County Legislator for County Legislative District 14 in the June 23, 2026, Republican Party Primary Election, is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED that the Westchester County Board of Elections is directed to place Bebe Ahmed's name on the ballot.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: April 28, 2026

White Plains, New York

HON. WILLIAM J. GIACOMO, J.S.C.