Supreme Court, Westchester County

Decided on April 28, 2026

Index No. 62449/2026

William J. Giacomo, J.

[*1]

In a special proceeding brought pursuant to Article 16 of the Election Law, Petitioner-Objector Serapher Conn-Halevi and Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate J. Gary Pretlow brought a proceeding to invalidate the designating petition purporting to designate Respondent-Candidate Brandon Neider, as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Member of the New York State Assembly for District 89 in the June 23, 2026, Republican Party Primary Election.

Papers Considered Index No.:62449/2026 NYSCEF DOC NO. 1-11; 15-22

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

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 Neider's designating petition. Shortly thereafter, Conn-Halevi 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 Neider's claims for lack of jurisdiction, and found, after a traverse hearing, that Neider had been properly served with the petition. The Court notes that, after properly serving the petition, petitioners uploaded an amended petition to NYSCEF, providing more specificity to their objections. Neider argued that he did not consent to service via NYSCEF. Therefore, the Court has considered the petition in rendering this Decision and Order.^FN1

According to the Board of Elections, 340 valid signatures are required for the position in question. The Board of Elections reviewed Neider's designating petition, which contained 532 signatures. Out of those 532 signatures, 38 were found to be invalid, leaving 494 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 [*2]the designating petition on behalf of themselves and for a family member(s). The first witness, Sean Coughlan, testified regarding sheet number 37 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. Neider was listed as the subscribing witness on page 37. 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 51 of the Neider 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 72 of Neider'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 listed was Bebe Ahmed. Castaneda did not see who rang his doorbell. Castaneda's wife did not testify.

Mary Hashim also testified via video that she signed the Neider petition for herself and for her husband on page 29, 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, "You know, they want my husband. I said, he's not here, can I sign for him? I said — one of them said yes, one of them said no, she can't. And they said you can sign. I sign, that's all."

Neider, 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. Neider himself did not testify, nor did he have any witnesses.

Neider argues that, as Coughlan did not recognize Neider as the subscribing witness, petitioners are unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Neider knowingly accepted fraudulent signatures on his designating petition. According to Neider, he was advised in writing that Coughlan would testify that Neider witnessed his signing. However, as Coughlan did not submit such testimony, the Court should disregard Coughlan's testimony. He also argues that someone, potentially a helper, may have taken the sheet to the Coughlan household without Neider's knowledge. He asserts that he had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing, considering that it was Coughlan and then two of his family members. In addition, Neider claims that he would have no motive to accept Coughlan's family members' signatures, as he has 150 signatures above the minimum required.

DISCUSSION

Fraud

A petitioner seeking to invalidate a designating petition on the basis of fraud must prove [*3]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 Neider's petition required 340 signatures and that 494 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 made a prima facie showing that Neider participated in fraudulently procuring signatures for his designating petition.

As noted, Coughlan testified that someone came to the doorway of his house and advised him that he could sign Neider's designating petition on behalf of himself, his wife and his daughter. Coughlin then signed for himself and his two family members. The subscribing witness for this sheet was Neider. The statement of the witness on the designating petition states the following, "I Brandon Neider state: I am a duly qualified voter of the State of New York and am an enrolled voter of the Republican Party. I now reside at . . .. Each of the individuals whose names are subscribed to this petition sheet containing 10 signatures, subscribed the same in my presence on the date above indicated and identified himself or herself to be the individual who signed this sheet."

In addition, pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 (2), the statement of witness on the bottom of the petition sheet sets forth that this "statement shall be accepted for all purposes as the equivalent of an affidavit, and if it contains a material false statement, shall subject the person signing it to the same penalties as if he or she had been duly sworn."

In sum, Neider, by virtue of acting as the subscribing witness on the petition sheet, attested to the fact that Coughlan, his wife and his daughter identified themselves to Neider as the ones who signed the sheet. However, only Coughlan was present in the doorway when Neider was collecting signatures.

According to Neider, as Coughlan testified that he could not identify Neider as the one who witnessed his signing, he cannot be charged with knowledge of the fraud. However, Neider does not dispute that he signed the petition sheet attesting to the validity of its contents. See e.g. Matter of Tapper v Samuel, 54 AD3d 435, 436 (2d Dept 2008) (Court invalidated petition, noting, among other things, "there was testimony at the hearing that the appellant did not personally witness and identify all of the signatures to which she attested as a subscribing witness under Election Law 6-132 (2)").

Moreover, on this record, Coughlan's testimony that Neider advised him that he could sign for other people, is unrefuted. The fact that Coughlan could not identify Neider at trial is irrelevant, as Neider attested that he was the signatory and no witness was called to the stand, including Neider himself, to refute the sheet on the designating petition with Coughlan and his family's signature or refute Coughlan's testimony. Therefore, as he is the subscribing witness he is charged with knowledge. Notably, while Neider speculates in his memorandum of law as to what may have occurred with Coughlan and the two signatures of his family members, Neider did not testify at the hearing nor did he present any witnesses on his behalf. On this record, the Court must accept the testimony and the documentary evidence.^FN2 Matter of Drace v Sayegh, 43 AD3d 481, 482 (2d Dept 2007) ("The Supreme Court credited the testimony of two witnesses whose signatures appeared on the designating petition over the appellant's contradictory testimony as to the circumstances of their signing").

Neider argues that his situation is similar to that in Matter of VanSavage v Jones (120 AD3d 887 [3d Dept 2014]), where the Court held that petitioner failed to submit any evidence that the candidate knowingly accepted fraudulent signatures. In that case, the candidate was at a pizza parlor and handed the petition to four people who identified themselves to the candidate. The candidate got distracted and was unaware that one person signed for the other three, until he received objections to his petition. However, in the current situation, Neider was in the doorway of one house, and witnessed one person sign on behalf of three.

The Court finds this case is more akin to Matter of Mattice v Hammond, 131 AD3d 790, 790 (3d Dept 2015), where the candidate was the subscribing witness who attested that each individual signed his or her own name, despite some of the signatures being signed by the individual's spouse. The candidate had testified that he was unaware that spouses could not sign for one another. In brief, the Court held that, regardless of the candidate's intent to deceive, the candidate participated in the fraud and the designating petition was invalidated.

Here, too, Neider allowed three signatures to be applied in his presence, despite only witnessing one. "Where, as here, the candidate himself, as a subscribing witness, has participated in the fraud, the petition should be invalidated even if there is a sufficient number of valid signatures independent of those fraudulently procured." Matter of Tapper v Samuel, 54 AD3d at 436 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Courts have held that "[w]here a candidate is involved in the fraud, the challenger need not show that the fraud permeated the entire petition." Matter of Mattice v Hammond, 131 AD3d at 790. Nonetheless, the Court notes that in support of his designating petition, Neider was the subscribing witness for 11 sheets, which casts a cloud of doubt over the whole process.

Accordingly, petitioner has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Neider engaged in fraud, which requires that the designating petition of Brandon Neider, as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Member of the New York State Assembly for District 89 in the June 23, 2026, Republican Party Primary Election, must be invalidated.

All other arguments raised in this petition and evidence submitted by the parties thereto [*4]have been considered by this court notwithstanding the specific absence of reference thereto.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner-Objector Serapher Conn-Halevi and Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate J. Gary Pretlow's petition seeking to invalidate the designating petition of Respondent-Candidate Brandon Neider, as a candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Member of the New York State Assembly for District 89 in the June 23, 2026, Republican Party Primary Election, is granted, and the Westchester County Board of Elections is directed to remove Brandon Neider's name from 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.