Judge rejects reconsideration of Olney's ballot challenge
Judge James P. McClusky had ruled Tuesday that a suit brought by Olney against the Jefferson County Board of Elections be dismissed because notice of the action had not been served on the county and a second defendant, Jeanne Barker, in a timely manner.
Olney was challenging a determination made by the board that he lacked the necessary number of valid signatures on his candidate petitions to be included on the ballot.
While McClusky's ruling did give validation to enough signatures on the petitions to restore Olney to the ballot, the issue was rendered moot when McClusky further ruled that the defendants were not given sufficient timely notice of the action, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.
Barker, a city resident, was named in the action because she was the one who filed a challenge to Olney's petitions with the Board of Elections.
Following McClusky's ruling, Olney almost immediately filed a motion with the court asking that the matter be reconsidered or that he have an opportunity to reargue the case. He made the argument, among other things, that his notice upon the defendants had been served in accordance with a timeline set by the court, which he had met.
In his subsequent ruling, McClusky said that Olney, who represented himself in the action, did not abide by state Civil Practice Laws and Rules when filing his motion for reconsideration.
The judge wrote that, under CPLR, it is Olney's obligation to prepare and serve the defendants with the motion and advise them of a return date for court. McClusky said Olney's motion included no return date or time for argument.
The judge also wrote that Olney had provided the court with an affidavit indicating he had personally served the notices. Under CPLR, a party to an action may not serve papers, making Olney's service "ineffective," according to McClusky's ruling.
The judge also took issue with six legal cases cited by Olney in his motion that Olney contended supported his claims under Election Law.
"None of those cases exist," McClusky wrote. "The citations provided have reference to other cases with no connection to the matters at issue in this case."
"The Court is not sure how Petitioner conducted his legal research, but he clearly did not check to ensure that his citations were correct," the judge wrote. "If an attorney had submitted these same papers, the Court would conduct a hearing and, if appropriate, sanction that attorney."
Recognizing that Olney was acting as his own attorney, the judge cautioned Olney that he is still held to the same standards as an attorney, "and if further legal papers are submitted with the same type of mistakes, such a hearing will be held."
Again recognizing that Olney is representing himself, the judge said he was rejecting his motion "without prejudice," leaving the door open for Olney to refile it.
READ FULL DECISION BELOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Here Is What to Know About Trump's 50% Tariffs on Brazil
The 50 percent tariffs President Trump imposed on Brazil this week are some of the highest he has applied on any country this year as he reshapes a global trading system he deems unfair to the United States. But the United States actually has had a trade surplus with Brazil for over a decade. Instead, Mr. Trump is targeting Brazil largely for political reasons — the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, his ally, who is accused of plotting a coup after he lost the last presidential election. Mr. Trump has called the case a 'witch hunt.'' He is also targeting a Brazilian Supreme Court justice he believes is unfairly censoring conservative voices online. Yet the tariffs were softened by hundreds of exceptions, including on some of Brazil's most important exports to the American market, which could make the effect on Brazil's economy less severe. Still, the levies will affect billions of dollars worth of goods and, if they remain in place, inflict pain in both nations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Yes, Brett Kavanaugh reads the online discourse about the Supreme Court
Trump's public ire has been directed mostly at district court judges, branding as a 'radical left lunatic' one who blocked aspects of his deportation efforts and another as a 'total disaster' for stymying his efforts to punish Harvard University for allegedly condoning antisemitism. Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller has said the president is beset by 'Communist' judges seizing his power. Kavanaugh's remarks came as several federal judges spoke out in a videoconference Thursday about death threats they'd received and their belief that heated political rhetoric fueled such threats and potential violence. Kavanaugh made no mention of threats to judges, although a man has pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing for attempting to assassinate the justice at his home in 2022. Kavanaugh touted judicial independence as 'the crown jewel of our constitutional democracy,' but did not paint it as acutely endangered in the way the court's liberal justices have suggested in recent months. Kavanaugh also defended the Supreme Court's handling of the so-called emergency docket, where the Trump administration has filed more than 20 urgent appeals and has often found success blocking some of the district court rulings Trump has complained about. Critics argue that the Supreme Court issues rulings of massive significance on that docket without detailed opinions and typically without the legal briefing and argument that goes into regular cases. 'Because of the importance of those questions, we have been, I think, doing more and more process to try to get the right answer on those,' Kavanaugh said. 'Lots of new processes that we have undertaken over really the last five or six years to help us make the best decision we can in the short time we have.' With some lower-court judges expressing irritation at the high court for not explaining its reasoning in emergency orders, Kavanaugh pronounced himself 'a fan' of the court doing so. But he cautioned there are some drawbacks and some disagreement among the justices about the wisdom of more detailed emergency docket rulings. 'I think there are different views among members of the court about when to do it and when not. We're nine independent people,' he said. Kavanaugh did seek to minimize perceptions of a stark divide at the Supreme Court between liberal and conservative camps. He referred to his colleagues by their first names and insisted relationships among the justices are friendly.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Adams' veto of unlicensed vending bill blasted as aiding Trump immigration crackdown
Mayor Adams vetoed a City Council bill late Wednesday that would decriminalize unlicensed street vending in the five boroughs, teeing up a likely override battle with the chamber's Democratic members, who accused the mayor of playing into President Trump's immigration agenda, The bill, which passed the Council in a veto-proof 40-8 vote in June, would scrap the criminal penalties vendors currently face if they sell food or merchandise on the streets without a city government-issued license. Many street vendors in the city are immigrants. Continuing to face penalties for unlicensed vending could make them easier targets for Trump's administration, which has pursued an aggressive crackdown in New York featuring masked ICE agents detaining non-citizens for potential deportation. Under the Council bill, unlicensed vending would instead be subject to civil penalties — a modification Council Democrats argue wouldn't put immigrant vendors at risk of deportation or other consequences, like difficulty obtaining legal status, housing or employment. But in announcing his veto of the bill, the mayor countered in a statement Thursday that the measure posed a public safety risk. 'We cannot be so idealistic that we're not realistic — preventing the brave men and women of the NYPD from intervening, even in the most egregious cases, is unfair to law-abiding business owners and poses real public health and safety risks,' Adams' statement said, adding he used his veto pen to stand up 'for the New Yorkers who follow the rules and the dedicated officers who continue to keep us safe.' Julia Agos, a rep for City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, said the chamber's Democrats were caught off guard by the veto, as the bill came out of discussions between members of the city's Street Vendor Advisory Board, which includes NYPD officials and other Adams administration reps. 'The Council negotiated this bill in good faith with the administration, only to have the mayor disregard the work of the advisory board and his own staff with this veto,' Agos said. Adams spokesman Zachary Nosanchuk disputed Agos' recollection, saying the mayor's team throughout negotiations maintained that criminal penalties need to stay in place. Against the backdrop of ICE enforcement efforts in the city, Agos said the mayor — who has faced accusations of being beholden to Trump since the Justice Department dismissed his corruption indictment — is doing the president a favor by vetoing the legislation. 'As the Trump administration continues to attack working families and immigrant communities, Mayor Adams' veto is yet another example of him supporting Trump's agenda over New Yorkers,' she said. Two Council sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing talks, told the Daily News the chamber is all but certain to override the mayor's veto, given it already had a veto-proof majority of support when it passed the bill. The Council needs support from at least 34 of its members in order to override a mayoral veto. According to the most recent city data, the NYPD issued more than 1,200 criminal vending tickets in 2023, an almost three-fold increase compared to 2022. Vendors who are Black or Latino are disproportionately impacted, receiving nearly 80% of all the criminal tickets issued in 2023, while making up just 50% of the city's overall population, the data shows. 'By vetoing … the mayor is actively putting more New Yorkers at greater risk — harming their ability to potentially access educational and housing opportunities and subjecting them to more potential avenues of attack from Donald Trump and ICE,' said Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition. The mayor's bid to block the street vending bill comes after he also on Wednesday vetoed the Council's decision to block Bally's from building a casino in the Bronx. During his first term, the mayor has vetoed several other Council bills, including a measure enacting more reporting requirements on NYPD officers. In each case, the Council has overridden his vetoes. Solve the daily Crossword
