Supreme Court, Rockland County

Decided on April 24, 2026

Index No. 032793/2026

John P. Collins, Jr., J.

[*1]

Petitioner, Rob Bonomolo (hereinafter "Bonomolo" or "Petitioner"), is the designee of the Republican Party for public office of Member of Assembly in the 97th Assembly District. By Order to Show Cause dated April 17, 2026, Petitioner requests a judgment invalidating the Conservative Party Designating Petition purporting to designate Abraham [*2]Klein (hereinafter "Klein") for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly 97th Assembly District.

Following the filing of the designating petition with Respondent Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter "BOE"), Petitioner-Objector Michael Sheridan (hereinafter "Sheridan"), Petitioner served via Federal Express written General and Specific Objections with the BOE and mailed the objections to Klein.

Following the filing of the nominating petitions with Respondent Rockland County BOE, Petitioner served the BOE, via certified mail, written General Objections. Petitioner's general objection alleges that the Petition is legally defective based upon the failure to contain the minimum number of signatures required pursuant to Election Law § 6-142. Specifically, the Petitioner-Objector alleges that the Designating Petition claimed to carry 125 signatures for the Conservative Party and the signature requirement for the office of Member of Assembly is 91.

Petitioner-Objector Sheridan alleges that the Designating Petition had 106 invalid signatures leaving the subject Petition with only 19 valid signatures, which is below the statutory threshold. Although the Petition alleged sixty-one (61) separate grounds for challenging signatures, at the hearing the parties stipulated to a far narrower scope of review. Petitioner asserts specific objections on the primary ground that the signatures do not match the signature exemplars stipulated into evidence by the parties. Additionally, Petitioner alleged that the signature had the wrong or incomplete address; that one signer entered an illegible signature; and, that one of the signatures was printed. Respondent challenged the determination of the BOE with respect to four (4) signatures that the BOE determined to be invalid.

Petitioner-Candidate Sherman contends that Respondent Candidate Klein filed the Petition containing 125 signatures. Following receipt of Petitioner's general and specific objections, the BOE reviewed the objections. Following the review, 28 signatures were invalidated, leaving 97 signatures deemed to be valid.

On April 22, 2026, the matter proceeded to a hearing. At the time of the hearing, the parties stipulated into evidence the Petition containing the names of the challenged signers and the BOE voter registrations for the challenged signers. The parties further stipulated that Petitioner was limiting his challenge to a total of ten (10) signatures, and Respondent Klein was challenging an unidentified number of signatures that the BOE had previously invalidated as part of their review process.

During the course of the hearing the Court analyzed each of the challenged signatures, compared the signatures to the exemplars that were stipulated into evidence, accepted argument of counsel and the Court's ruling was announced on the record after each assessment was concluded.

It is well settled that a court sitting as the trier of fact "may make [its] own comparisons of handwriting samples in the absence of expert testimony on the subject." Matter of Smith v. Coughlin, 198 AD2d 726, 726 [3d Dept. 1993]; see Civil Practice Law and Rules § 4536; see also People v. Hunter, 34 NY2d 432, 435—436, 358 N.Y.S.2d 360 [1974].

In this case, this Court made specific findings regarding the validity of the signatures on the nominating petition by making its own comparison of those signatures to the signatures on the voter registration rolls and other exemplars stipulated to by the parties. See generally Matter of Powell v. Tendy, 131 AD3d 645, 645 [2d Dept. 2015]; Matter of Felder v. Storobin, 100 AD3d 11,18 [2d Dept. 2012]; Matter of Hosley v. Valder, 160 AD2d [*3]1094, 1096, [3d Dept. 1990]. It is equally well settled that the comparison standard to be applied with regard to the questioned signatures is not whether they are identical to the exemplars but instead whether they "meaningfully compare" to the exemplars. Quercia v. Bernstein 87 AD3d 652 [2d Dept. 2011].

The following signatures that were determined to be valid by the BOE, designated as BOE Exhibits 1-9 herein and identified by the line and sheet number of the Petition, were challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing. In each instance where the validity of the signature was challenged, the Court compared the challenged signature to the exemplars stipulated into evidence by the parties. The Court thereafter determined as follows:

1. Page 1 line 1 (Board of Elections Exhibit 2): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is a valid signature. The Court also compared the challenged address to the address on the voter registration card and determined that the address was substantially the same only omitting the apartment number and is sufficient to locate the voter.

2. Page 6 line 1 (Board of Elections Exhibit 3): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the challenged signature was illegible and did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature.

3. Page 7 line 9 (Board of Elections Exhibit 4): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature meaningfully compares to the exemplar and is a valid signature.

4. Page 6 line 2 (Board of Elections Exhibit 3): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature. The Court also compared the challenged address to the address on the voter registration card and determined the address was substantially the same and is sufficient to locate the voter.

5. Page 8 line 7 (Board of Elections Exhibit 5): This challenge alleged that the signature did not match the exemplar and further alleged that the address was not the same as on the voters registration card since it was missing the "Ave." The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is a valid signature. The Court also compared the challenged address to the address on the voter registration card and determined that despite the missing "Ave" the address was substantially the same and is sufficient to locate the voter.

6. Page 10 line 1 (Board of Elections Exhibit 6): Petitioner contended that the address was incomplete or wrong and impossible to determine if it existed. The Court determined that the address was legible and determined that the challenged signature is a valid signature.

7. Page 11 line 1 (Board of Elections Exhibit 7): Petitioner alleged that the signature did not match the exemplar and was not the same signature. The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar since the exemplar contained only an initial as a first name and the Petition contained an entire name. The challenged signature is NOT [*4]a valid signature.

8. Page 15, line 7 (Board of Elections Exhibit 8): Petitioner contended that the signature did not match the exemplar and the address was incomplete or wrong. The Court determined that the address was legible and determined that the challenged signature is a valid signature.

9. Page 16, Line 2 (Board of Elections Exhibit 9): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature.

10. Page 16, Line 4 (Board of Elections Exhibit 9): The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature.

The following signatures that were determined to be invalid by the BOE, identified by the line and sheet number of the Petition, were challenged by Respondent Candidate Klein at the hearing. In each instance where the validity of the signature was challenged, the Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar, BOE Exhibits 3, 10-11. The Court thereafter determined as follows based solely on the signature comparison:

11. Page 2 line 9: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature.

12. Page 4 line 1: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature did not meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is NOT a valid signature.

13. Page 6 line 3: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and determined that the signature meaningfully compares to the exemplar and is a valid signature.^FN1

Summarizing the Court's factual determinations articulated by the Court on the record during the course of the hearing, this Court determined that the Petition contains 90 valid signatures, a number that is not greater than 91, the minimum number of signatures required by law. Respondent Candidate sought an adjournment of the hearing to rehabilitate by obtaining affidavits or the voters whose signature were challenged by the Petitioner and determined to be invalid by the Court. Petitioner Candidate and Petitioner Objector objected to the submission of affidavits in lieu of the voter's testifying in person asserting that the affidavits are hearsay. Further, Petitioner Candidate and Petitioner Objector argued that the submission of affidavits instead of testimony from the voters prevented cross examination and a determination of credibility. Respondent Candidate's adjournment was granted.

The parties continued the hearing as to the instant Petition on the following day, April 23, 2026. Respondent Candidate marked for identification and sought to introduce in evidence Affidavits of David M. Roth, Chaim Gordon, Baruch C. Richter, Trany Zarkowsky and Mordechai Walter asserting pursuant to Jaffe v Kelly, 32 AD3d 485 (2d Dept [*5]2006), affidavits are sufficient to rehabilitate invalidated voters. See Respondent Candidate Exhibits A-E. According to Respondent Candidate, the Affidavits -- Respondent Candidate Exhibits A-E -- are admissible in that they are notarized and self-authenticated. Pursuant to Braunfotel v Feiden, 172 AD3d 1451 (2d Dept 2019), they may be used to rehabilitate invalidated voters. Petitioner Candidate and Objector objected to the admission of the Affidavits asserting they were not served on Petitioners' counsel prior to the continued hearing, that they contained double hearsay, that their admission was more prejudicial than probative, and that they raise concerns of fraud based upon the pattern of irregularity. After argument, Respondent Candidate Exhibits A-E were admitted into evidence.

After accepting Respondent Candidate Exhibits A-E into evidence, the Court reviewed all five (5) of the affidavits and reversed the prior determination as to the following challenged signatures:

1. Page 6, line 2: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and the affidavit submitted as Respondent Candidate Exhibit B and determined that the affidavit signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is a valid signature.

2. Page 11, line 1: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and the affidavit submitted as Candidate Exhibit C and determined that the signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar challenged and is a valid signature.

3. Page 16, line 2: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and the affidavit submitted as Candidate Exhibit D and determined that the signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is a valid signature.

4. Page 16, line 4: The Court compared the challenged signature to the agreed upon exemplar and the affidavit submitted as Candidate Exhibit E and determined that the signature did meaningfully compare to the exemplar and is a valid signature.

The Court also reviewed the affidavit in evidence as Respondent Candidate Exhibit A, which was submitted by Respondent Candidate in opposition to Petitioners' challenge to Page 6, line 1 (Board of Elections Exhibit 3) and determined that there were signatures within both the signature and address box. In addition, the Court found that the affidavit did not specify which of the two signatures was the signature of David M. Roth. Therefore, the challenged signature was determined to be invalid.

Now summarizing the Court's factual determinations as articulated on the record during the course of the hearing and after Respondent Candidate's rebuttal submissions. This Court determined that the Petition contains 93 valid signatures, a number that is greater than 91 -- the minimum number of signatures required by law. Therefore, the application of Petitioner for an order declaring the independent nominating petition of Candidate Respondent Abraham Klein as a candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly 97th Assembly District on the Conservative Party line as invalid, is denied in all respects.

Based on the foregoing, it is therefore:

ORDERED, that the Petition is denied in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Designating Petition of Candidate Respondent Abraham Klein as a candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly 97th Assembly District on the Conservative Party line is valid and comports in all respects with New York Election Law, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Rockland County Board of Elections shall count the 93 signatures determined by this Court to be valid and shall disallow those signatures determined to be invalid.

The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. All arguments, including those not specifically referred to herein, have been considered.

Dated: April 24, 2026

New City, New York

ENTER

Hon. John P. Collins, Jr.

Justice of the Supreme Court