Matter of Rand v Sheridan

Supreme Court, Rockland County

Decided on April 27, 2026

Index No. 2026-000471

John P. Collins, Jr., J.

Petitioner Joseph Rand (hereinafter "Rand" or "Petitioner"), is the designee of the Working Families Party for public office of Member of the New York State Senate for the 38th Senate District. By Order to Show Cause dated April 23, 2026, Petitioner requests a judgment invalidating the Opportunity to Ballot Petition filed with the Rockland County Board of Elections purported to designate Respondent-Candidate Michael Sheridan (hereinafter "Sheridan") as a candidate for the public office of Senator, New York State Senate for the 38th District in the Working Families Party Primary Election to beheld on June 23, 2026.

Following the filing of the designating petition on April 6, 2026 with Respondent [*2]Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter "BOE"), by Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate on April 9, 2026, the BOE received a Designating and Independent Nominating Petition containing an Opportunity to Ballot Petition (hereinafter "OTB") purporting to nominate for the Working Families Party Respondent Candidate Michael Paul Sheridan (hereinafter "Sheridan") for the New York State Senate 38th Senate District. Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate filed written general and specific objections on April 20, 2026, pursuant to Election Law § 6-154.

Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate commenced this matter with the filing of the Petition and Order to Show Cause on April 23, 2026, at 4:05 p.m. Upon the filing of the subject Petition on April 23, 2026, the matter was randomly assigned to the Honorable Thomas Zugibe, J.S.C., who recused. Based upon Judge Zugibe's recusal, the matter was randomly reassigned to the Honorable Keith Cornell, A.J.S.C., who also recused.

On April 24, 2026, at approximately 10:15 a.m., the undersigned was assigned as the Justice to preside over the instant action. Upon receipt of the assignment and the Petition and Order to Show Cause, the Court conformed the Order to Show Cause and directed service of the Order to Show Cause, Petition and accompanying documents on Respondents personally and via email on the same date by 12:00 p.m. (noon), and required an appearance at 2:00 p.m.

The conformed Order to Show Cause was emailed to Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate from the undersigned's Chambers at 10:24 a.m. and the service and appearance requirements were reiterated. Additionally, a voicemail message was left for Petitioner indicating that the Order to Show Cause was conformed by the Court and ready to be served. In response, at about 12:20 p.m., the Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate contacted the undersigned's Chambers and was again informed of the service and appearance requirements set forth in the conformed Order to Show Cause. During the Court's lunch recess, Chambers was contacted by John Ciampoli, Esq., representing the Committee to Receive Notices for the Working Party -- who indicated he could not appear in person due to the late notification and requested a virtual or telephonic appearance.

At 2:00 p.m. on April 24, 2026, the Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate and Miguel Lluzema, Esq. of the Rockland County Attorney's Office on behalf of the BOE, appeared before the undersigned. In addition, Attorney Ciampoli on behalf of the Committee to Receive Notices for the Working Party (hereinafter "Committee to Receive Notices") appeared telephonically and made an application to intervene and to dismiss the petition pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §§ 1001 and 3211, respectively.

Further, Attorney Ciampoli asserted that Respondent-Candidate Sheridan was not a candidate and instead was an agent whose name appeared on the cover letter submitting the OTB Petition on behalf of Agin Antony, Rosamma Xavier and Susan C. Schneider, all of the Committee to Receive Notices. Attorney Ciampoli argued that since the Committee to Receive Notices nor the OTB Petitioners, who he asserted are necessary parties, were not named as Respondents -- the Petition seeking invalidation of the OTB Petition was insufficient.

Turning first to the Committee to Receive Notices application to intervene, "[n]ecessary parties are those 'who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in an action." Matter of Morgan v de Blasio, 29 NY3d 559, 560 (2017) quoting Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1001(a). Pursuant to Election Law § 6-164 "[e]nrolled members of a party entitled to vote in the nomination of a candidate for public office or the election of a candidate for party position in a primary election of such party, and equal in number to at least the number of signers required to designate a candidate for such office or position may file with the officer or board with whom or [*3]which are filed designating petitions for such office or position a petition requesting an opportunity to write in the name of a candidate or candidates enrolled in such party, who need not be specified, for such office or position." Additionally, § 6-164 provides that OTB "petitions shall be subject to objections and court determination thereof in the same manner as designating petitions . . . ." And "[a]ll required notices shall be served on the members of the committee named in the petition."

A proceeding that is brought pursuant to election law that challenges the validity of an OTB, like a proceeding challenging the validity of voter registrations, requires the joinder of those individuals who filed the petition as necessary parties since they would be "inequitably affected" under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1001(a) by an order invalidating the OTB. See Hughes v Delaware Cnty Bd of Elections, 217 AD3d 1250, 1253 (3d Dept 2023). Here, the authority of the Committee to Receive Notices, who filed the OTB, that the Petitioner seeks to invalidate, may be inequitably affected by the instant action and as such Petitioner's failure to join them was jurisdictionally fatal. See Wohl v Bruen, 238 AD3d 818, 819 (2d Dept 2025); See also Flores v Kapsis, 10 AD3d 432, 433 (2d Dept 2004). Based upon the record before the Court, the Committee to Receive Notices' application to intervene was granted and the Court then considered their motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3211.

Next, Intervenor Committee to Receive Notices asserted that the Petition before this Court is untimely because the Petitioner did not commence the instant proceeding within fourteen (14) days of the last day to file the Petition for the Opportunity to Ballot as set forth in Election Law § 16-102. The time limits set forth in Election Law § 16-102 are "absolute and not a matter subject to the exercise of discretion by the courts." Matter of Carr v New York State Bd. of Elections, 40 NY2d 556, 559 (1976). "A petitioner raising a challenge under Election Law § 16-102 must commence the proceeding and complete service on all the necessary parties within the period prescribed by Election Law § 16-102(2)." Matter of Nunziato v Messano, 87 AD3d 647, 648 (2d Dept 2011) quoting Matter of Wilson v Garfinkle, 5 AD3d 409, 410 (2d Dept 2004); See Stern v Putnam County Board of Elections, 219 AD3d 1269 (2d Dept 2023); See also Matter of Silkowski v Cacace, 308 AD2d 425 (2d Dept 2003); See also Marino v Orange Cty Bd of Elections, 307 AD2d 2011 (2d Dept 2003).

"A failure to [commence and complete service] within this time period is a fatal jurisdictional defect resulting in a dismissal of the proceeding as untimely." Matter of Sayegh v Scannapieco, 4 Misc 3d 1015(4), *2 (Supreme Ct Putnam Cty, 2004). Further, a petitioner in an Article 16 Election Law proceeding is required to serve the respondents "as the court or justice shall direct," statutory language indicating that the service shall be set forth in an order to show cause by the reviewing court. To that end, the notice requirement set forth in Election Law § 16- 116 has been interpreted to require "delivery of the instrument of notice no later than on the last day on which the proceeding may be commenced." Matter of Angiletti v. Morreale, 25 NY3d 794, 797 (2015) quoting Matter of King v Cohen, 293 NY435, 439 (1994); Sweat v Dutchess County Board of Elections, 220 AD3d 828 (2d Dept 2023).

Here, the parties agree the last day to commence a proceeding to invalidate the subject OTB Petition was April 23, 2026. As such, the Petitioner was required to both file the petition to invalidate the OTB and serve all necessary parties on or before that date. See Nunziato v Messano, 87 AD3d 647 (2d Dept 2011). Upon oral argument the Petitioner conceded that he did not effectuate service on the Respondent Sheridan on or before April 23, 2020, asserting that he was under the misimpression that filing of the Petition and Order to Show Cause with the [*4]Rockland County Clerk by April 23, 2026, was sufficient to ensure his Petition to invalidate was timely.

The Petitioner did comply with the requirement to file the Petition within the fourteen (14) days as required by Election Law § 16-102(2), as his Petition and Order to Show Cause were filed on April 23, 2026, at 4:05 p.m. The Court notes that on April 23, 2026, the matter was randomly assigned to the Honorable Thomas P. Zugibe, J.S.C., who recused on that date. Thereafter, this matter was randomly assigned to the Honorable Keith J. Cornell, A.J.S.C., who also recused.

Neither justice conformed the Order to Show Cause on April 23, 2026, before recusing. The undersigned was randomly assigned the instant matter on April 24, 2026, at about 10:15 a.m. and immediately conformed the Order to Show Cause directing service on the same day by 12:00 p.m. (noon) and an appearance at 2:00 p.m. The Court informed Petitioner of the service provision via voicemail and email at approximately 10:15 a.m. At the appearance at 2:00 p.m., the Petitioner represented that he served Respondent Sheridan at about 1:00 p.m. pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules § 308(2) -- which Attorney Ciampoli conceded was received and he was contacted to appear on behalf of the Committee to Receive Notices.

The Court finds that since the Order to Show Cause was not conformed on April 23, 2026, and service on the Respondents did not occur before midnight on April 23, 2026, the instant action was not commenced and service completed within the fourteen (14) days statutory time frame set forth in Election Law § 16-102(2). The failure to serve all necessary parties in violation of Election Law § 16-102(2) is a fatal jurisdictional defect. See DiStephano v Borkowski, 153 AD3d 817 (2d Dept 2017); See also Mater of McCory v Westchester Board of Education, 216 AD3d 857, 858 (2d Dept 2023); Matter of Stora v New York State Board of Elections, 208 AD3d 1213, 1213-1214 (2d Dept 2022). Based upon the foregoing the Petition is dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, it is therefore:

ORDERED, that the Petition is dismissed; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Opportunity to Ballot Petition filed by the Working 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 accept the Opportunity to Ballot Petition filed by the Working Party line determined by this Court to be valid.

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 27, 2026

New City, New York

ENTER:

HON. JOHN P. COLLINS, Jr.

Justice of the Supreme Court