Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
In re Rinaldi
(2026)
Case details
Full caption
In the Matter of the Application of Jonathan David Rinaldi
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
2026
Disposition
Petition Dismissed
In
the
Matter
of
the
Application
of
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi,...,
---
N.Y.S.3d
----
(2026)
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
1
2026
WL
1279715
Only
the
Westlaw
citation
is
currently
available.
Supreme
Court,
Queens
County,
New
York.
In
the
Matter
of
the
Application
of
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi,
Petitioner-Aggrieved
Candidate,
v.
Andrew
D.
Hevesi,
Respondent-Candidate,
and
THE
BOARD
OF
ELECTIONS
IN
THE
CITY
OF
NEW
YORK,
Respondents,
For
an
Order
pursuant
to
Sections
16-100,
16-102,
and
16-116
of
the
Election
Law,
declaring
INVALID
the
Designating
petition
which
named
the
Respondent
Andrew
D.
Hevesi
as
a
Candidate
for
the
Public
Office
of
Member
of
the
State
Assembly
from
the
28th
Assembly
District,
Queens
County,
State
of
New
York,
in
the
Democratic
Party
Primary
Election
to
be
held
on
June
23,
2026,
and
directing
said
BOARD
OF
ELECTIONS
to
remove
the
name
of
said
Candidate
from
the
official
ballots
of
such
Primary
Election.
Index
No.
711266/2026
|
Decided
on
April
27,
2026
Attorneys
and
Law
Firms
Petitioner
represented
himself,
respondent
Andrew
Hevesi
was
represented
by
Gerard
J.
Sweeney
,
Esq.
of
Sweeney,
Reich
&
Bolz
LLP,
and
respondent
Board
of
Elections
was
represented
by
Kendra
Elise
Riddleberger,
Esq.
of
Corporation
Counsel
of
NYC.
Opinion
Tracy
Catapano-Fox
,
J.
*1
The
following
papers
numbered
EF-15
to
EF-25
read
on
this
motion
by
Respondent-Candidate
ANDREW
D.
HEVESI
for
an
Order
dismissing
the
Petition
of
Petitioner-Aggrieved
Candidate
JONATHAN
DAVID
RINALDI
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
.
Papers
Numbered
Notice
of
Motion,
Affirmation,
Exhibits
EF15-EF22
Affirmation
in
Opposition,
Memorandum
EF25
Upon
the
foregoing
papers,
and
after
oral
argument,
it
is
ordered
this
motion
is
determined
as
follows:
Respondent-Candidate
Andrew
D.
Hevesi's
motion
for
an
Order
dismissing
the
petition
of
Petitioner-Aggrieved
Candidate
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
is
granted.
Petitioner
commenced
this
Special
Election
proceeding
by
filing
a
petition
with
an
Order
to
Show
Cause
to
invalidate
respondent's
designating
petition
in
the
primary
election
on
June
23,
2026.
In
lieu
of
filing
an
Answer,
respondent
filed
this
motion
to
dismiss.
The
petition
alleges
on
March
30,
2026,
four
volumes
of
designating
petitions
were
filed
at
the
Board
of
Elections
by
respondent
as
a
candidate
for
the
public
office
of
Member
of
New
York
State
Assembly
on
the
Democratic
Party
line
from
the
28th
Assembly
District
in
Queens,
New
York.
The
petition
states
on
April
6,
2026,
simultaneous
with
the
designating
petition,
respondent
also
filed
a
certificate
of
authorization
and
a
certificate
of
acceptance,
documents
that
apply
solely
to
candidates
who
are
not
enrolled
members
of
the
political
party
in
which
they
seek
nomination
under
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
The
petition
further
alleges
the
Board
of
Elections
is
an
administrative
body
that
lacks
authority
to
resolve
or
interpret
conflicting
filings
to
determine
which
document
controls.
The
petition
alleges
as
respondent's
filings
are
inconsistent,
facially
defective
and
invalid,
this
Court
should
hold
respondent's
designating
petition
invalid
and
remove
respondent
from
the
ballot
for
the
Democratic
Party
Primary
Election
on
June
23,
2026.
Respondent
moves
to
dismiss
the
petition
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
,
and
presents
the
underlying
papers,
respondent's
voter
registration,
an
allegedly
fraudulent
registration,
and
an
affidavit
of
merit
in
support
of
his
motion.
Respondent
notes
on
March
30,
2026,
he
filed
his
Democratic
Designating
Petition
for
the
Public
Office
of
Member
of
the
State
Assembly
from
the
28th
Assembly
District,
Queens
County,
State
of
New
York,
in
the
Democratic
Primary
Election
to
be
held
on
June
23,
2026.
Respondent
argues
the
next
day,
he
discovered
someone
fraudulently
filed
a
sham
voter
registration
with
the
Queens
County
Board
of
Elections
on
February
10,
2026,
purporting
to
change
his
registration
from
the
Democratic
Party
to
the
Working
Families
Party.
On
April
1,
2026,
respondent
filed
an
affidavit
with
the
Board
of
Elections
attesting
the
February
10th
filing
was
fraudulent,
he
never
intended
to
change
his
party
affiliation,
and
requesting
the
Board
of
Elections
void
the
fraudulent
document,
reinstate
his
last
party
registration
and
correct
the
voter
record
to
reflect
In
the
Matter
of
the
Application
of
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi,...,
---
N.Y.S.3d
----
(2026)
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
2
his
enrollment
in
the
Democratic
Party.
Respondent
argues
the
Board
of
Elections
vacated
the
fraudulent
registration
and
restored
his
party
affiliation
to
the
Democratic
Party,
after
which
it
accepted
his
designating
petitions.
*2
Respondent
argued
due
to
the
short
time
frame
and
issue
regarding
registration,
the
Queens
County
Democratic
Party
scheduled
a
meeting
on
April
5,
2026,
where
the
District
Leaders
from
the
28th
Assembly
District
filed
an
authorization
and
acceptance
for
respondent
to
run
on
the
Democratic
Party
line.
He
presents
the
affidavit
of
merit
filed
with
the
Board
of
Election
where
he
attested
he
meets
all
of
the
requirements
to
vote
in
New
York
and
is
enrolled
in
the
Democratic
Party.
He
attested
he
learned
on
March
31,
2026
that
a
change
of
registration
bearing
his
name
and
address
was
filed
with
the
Board
of
Elections
on
February
10,
2026.
He
further
attested
this
change
of
registration
was
fraudulent,
he
did
not
sign
or
authorize
anyone
to
sign
his
name
to
it,
and
the
form
included
numerous
falsehoods,
including
his
lack
of
a
driver's
license
and
social
security
number.
He
further
attested
his
affidavit
was
filed
with
the
Board
of
Elections,
and
he
requested
the
change
of
registration
be
voided,
his
prior
voter
registration
be
reinstated,
and
the
voter
record
reflect
his
enrollment
in
the
Democratic
Party.
He
further
argues
once
the
Board
of
Elections
vacated
the
fraudulent
registration
and
restored
his
party
registration
to
the
Democratic
Party,
the
Board
held
the
filing
of
the
authorization
was
not
required
and
the
original
petition
was
timely
and
properly
accepted.
Respondent
argues
the
petition
to
invalidate
should
be
dismissed
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
because
it
fails
to
state
a
valid
cause
of
action.
He
argues
his
candidacy
is
proper
and
the
filing
of
the
authorization
by
the
Queens
County
Democratic
Party
was
not
in
conflict
and
did
not
invalidate
his
designating
petitions
filed
on
March
30,
2026.
Respondent
argues
his
petitions
were
properly
accepted
by
the
Board,
and
the
authorization
and
acceptance
were
filed
to
ensure
the
validity
of
his
Democratic
Party
candidacy
when
confronted
with
the
fraudulent
attempt
to
interfere
with
the
election.
He
argues
petitioner's
claim
that
he
violated
Election
Law
because
he
was
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party
who
also
filed
an
authorization
and
acceptance
as
a
non-member
of
the
Democratic
Party
under
Election
Law
6-120(3)
is
meritless.
Respondent
further
argues
once
the
Board
of
Elections
vacated
the
fraudulent
change
of
party
form
and
reinstated
his
prior
registration
with
the
Democratic
Party,
the
Board
rendered
the
authorization
and
acceptance
as
superfluous
and
thereby
a
nullity.
Respondent
argues
the
authorization
does
not
concede
he
was
enrolled
in
another
party,
but
merely
states
the
Democratic
Party
district
leaders
had
no
objection
to
and
authorized
his
candidacy
on
the
Democratic
Party
line.
He
argues
these
filings
were
made
because
of
fraudulent
and
criminal
acts
to
prevent
his
candidacy,
and
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution
that
the
Board
of
Elections
would
not
timely
correct
the
fraudulent
registration.
Respondent
argues
once
the
Board
acknowledged
the
change
of
party
affiliation
was
fraudulently
filed,
it
vacated
the
fraudulent
registration,
and
restored
his
registration
as
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party,
thereby
rendering
the
certificate
of
authorization
unnecessary
and
moot.
Respondent
also
argues
the
petition
should
be
dismissed
because
it
lacks
specificity
and
does
not
seek
to
challenge
any
of
the
signatures
or
process
in
obtaining
a
sufficient
number
of
valid
signatures.
He
further
argues
the
petition
should
be
dismissed
for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction,
as
petitioner
failed
to
comply
with
the
statutory
provisions
required
for
proper
service.
He
argues
the
caselaw
presented
by
petitioner
is
inapplicable
and
some
cases
are
fictional
and
improperly
presented
to
support
a
meritless
argument.
Respondent
argues
he
has
been
the
victim
of
fraudulent,
criminal
acts
against
his
candidacy,
and
petitioner
should
not
be
able
to
benefit
by
alleging
his
petitions
are
invalid.
Petitioner
opposes
the
motion
and
submits
a
memorandum
of
law
in
support
of
his
opposition
pursuant
to
Election
Law
§
16-100
,
16-102
,
and
16-116
.
He
argues
his
petition
states
a
valid
cause
of
action,
and
the
Court
must
accept
all
facts
in
the
petition
as
true
and
not
resolve
factual
disputes.
Petitioner
argues
he
is
challenging
respondent's
eligibility
for
ballot
access
based
on
statutory
compliance
at
the
time
of
filing,
as
respondent's
filings
reflect
a
legal
inconsistency
in
party
enrollment
status
requiring
authorization
under
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
He
argues
respondent
presents
allegations
of
fraud,
administrative
correction
and
factual
explanation
outside
the
petition,
and
disputed
facts
cannot
be
considered
in
a
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
motion.
Petitioner
further
argues
he
is
not
disputing
signature
validity
or
Board
of
Election
signature
determinations,
but
challenges
respondent's
eligibility
and
statutory
compliance.
*3
Petitioner
argues
respondent's
motion
should
be
denied
because
the
petition
states
a
cognizable
cause
of
action
under
the
Election
Law
challenging
respondent's
eligibility
for
ballot
access
based
on
statutory
inconsistencies
in
respondent's
filings
at
the
time
of
submission
of
his
designating
petition.
He
argues
respondent
filed
a
Democratic
Party
designating
petition
while
also
filing
an
authorization
In
the
Matter
of
the
Application
of
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi,...,
---
N.Y.S.3d
----
(2026)
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
3
and
acceptance
pursuant
to
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
Based
upon
the
conflicting
filings,
petitioner
argues
there
is
an
issue
of
fact
in
dispute
that
is
validly
presented
in
the
petition.
Petitioner
also
argues
respondent's
motion
relies
on
factual
assertions
outside
the
four
corners
of
the
petition,
including
allegations
of
fraud,
administrative
correction
by
the
Board
of
Elections,
and
explanations
requiring
timing
and
intent
that
are
disputed
and
cannot
be
considered
at
this
early
stage.
He
further
argues
the
filing
of
the
certificate
of
authorization
is
not
irrelevant
or
a
nullity,
but
a
statutory
mechanism
applicable
only
when
a
candidate
is
not
properly
enrolled
in
the
party
in
which
they
seek
nomination.
Petitioner
argues
respondent
cannot
simultaneously
claim
to
be
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party
while
invoking
a
statutory
provision
applicable
only
to
non-members.
He
further
argues
even
if
caselaw
citations
are
"imperfect",
dismissal
is
not
warranted
where
a
petition
states
a
valid
cause
of
action.
Petitioner
further
argues
respondent's
case
law
is
inapplicable
as
signature-specific
pleading
requirements
are
not
needed
because
the
petition
does
not
challenge
individual
signatures
or
Board
signature
determinations.
Finally,
petitioner
argues
he
complied
with
all
service
requirements
and
jurisdiction
is
therefore
proper.
Based
upon
the
foregoing,
petitioner
argues
respondent's
motion
should
be
denied.
The
Board
of
Elections
opposed
the
petition
to
invalidate
respondent's
nominating
petitions
for
the
Democratic
Party
in
the
June
23,
2026
primary
election.
The
Board
noted
on
April
3,
2026
respondent
filed
a
coversheet
and
designating
petitions
for
the
Working
Families
Party
nomination
for
the
Assembly
28th
District.
The
Board
further
noted
on
April
6th
a
certificate
of
authorization
was
filed
from
the
Queens
County
Democratic
Party
for
respondent-candidate's
nomination
as
the
Democratic
candidate
for
the
Assembly
28th
District,
in
addition
to
a
timely
filed
certificate
of
acceptance.
The
Board
opposes
petitioner's
argument
that
respondent's
filing
of
the
certificate
of
authorization
and
certificate
of
acceptance
created
confusion.
The
Board
argues
petitioner
conceded
respondent
is
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party,
and
therefore
since
respondent
was
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party
when
the
certificate
of
authorization
was
filed,
the
certificate
was
a
nullity.
Furthermore,
the
Board
argues
the
filing
of
the
certificate
of
authorization
did
not
create
any
confusion,
but
clarified
respondent-candidate
is
running
for
Assembly-28th
District
as
a
Democrat.
On
a
motion
to
dismiss
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
,
the
claim
must
be
afforded
a
liberal
construction,
the
facts
therein
must
be
accepted
as
true,
and
the
claimant
must
be
accorded
the
benefit
of
every
favorable
inference.
(
Brown
v.
State
of
New
York
,
243
AD3d
871,
872
[2d
Dept.
2025]
.)
The
court
can
consider
evidentiary
material,
however
the
criterion
then
becomes
whether
the
proponent
of
the
pleading
has
a
cause
of
action
rather
than
whether
the
proponent
has
stated
one.
(
Id.
)
A
motion
to
dismiss
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
must
be
denied
unless
it
has
been
shown
a
material
fact
as
claimed
by
the
pleader
is
not
a
fact
and
unless
it
can
be
said
that
no
significant
dispute
exists
regarding
it.
(
TV
Tech
Mgrs.,
Inc.
v.
Cohen
,
227
AD3d
838,
840
[2d
Dept.
2024]
.)
Election
Law
§
6-120(1)
states
a
petition
designating
a
person
as
a
candidate
for
party
nomination
in
a
primary
election
shall
be
valid
only
if
the
designated
person
is
an
enrolled
member
of
the
party
referred
to
in
the
designating
petition
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
petition.
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
states
in
relevant
part,
the
members
of
a
designating
party
committee
may
authorize
designation
or
nomination
of
a
person
as
a
candidate
for
office
who
is
not
a
member
of
such
party.
This
action
presents
a
matter
of
first
impression,
whether
the
filing
of
designating
petitions
for
a
party
is
inconsistent
with
filing
an
authorization
under
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
It
is
undisputed
that
party
nominations
are
an
area
in
which
the
courts
have
authority
to
resolve
disputes.
(
Matter
of
Amedure
v.
State
of
New
York
,
232
AD3d
48
[3d
Dept.
2024]
.)
In
analyzing
this
issue,
the
Court
must
consider
the
purpose
of
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
,
which
serves
to
provide
access
to
nomination
or
designation
to
a
party
candidacy
for
non-
party
members.
In
Matter
of
Master
v.
Pohanka
,
the
Court
of
Appeals
noted
the
legislative
intent
behind
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
was
to
prevent
the
invasion
or
takeover
of
the
parties
by
outsiders.
(
Matter
of
Master
v.
Pohanka
,
10
NY3d
620,
626
[2008]
.)
Recently,
the
Second
Department
discussed
the
purpose
of
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
in
Matter
of
Farrell
v.
Reid
,
by
holding
"a
primary
purpose
of
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
is
to
'safeguard
the
integrity
of
the
electoral
process
and
not
to
defeat
elections.'
"
(
Matter
of
Farrell
v.
Reid
,
131
AD3d
628,
629-630
[2d
Dept.
2015]
.)
*4
Respondent
demonstrated
prima
facie
entitlement
to
dismissal
under
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
,
as
the
petition
does
not
state
a
valid
cause
of
action.
Respondent
demonstrated
the
petition
inaccurately
and
improperly
seeks
relief
for
what
petitioner
claims
is
an
inconsistent
filing
without
sufficient
basis
in
law
and
fact.
Respondent
demonstrated
he
has
been
a
registered
Democrat
and
filed
nominating
petitions
as
a
Democratic
Party
candidate
for
the
28th
Assembly
on
March
In
the
Matter
of
the
Application
of
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi,...,
---
N.Y.S.3d
----
(2026)
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
4
30,
2026,
when
he
learned
a
change
of
party
nomination
form
had
been
filed
without
his
knowledge
or
authority.
He
further
demonstrated
he
proactively
sought
to
address
this
fraudulent
activity
and
preserve
his
ability
to
become
designated
by
the
Democratic
Party
by
filing
an
affidavit
of
merit
with
the
Board
of
Elections
seeking
to
vacate
the
fraudulent
filing,
and
also
filed
the
certificate
of
authorization
and
acceptance.
Further,
the
Board
of
Elections
affirmed
there
was
no
confusion
with
regard
to
the
filing
of
the
designating
petitions
on
March
30th
and
the
subsequent
certificate
of
authorization,
as
once
the
Board
vacated
the
fraudulent
filing,
the
authorization
became
void
and
a
nullity.
Respondent
demonstrated
the
authorization
was
not
a
concession
that
he
was
not
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party,
but
an
acknowledgment
that
the
Democratic
Party
District
Leaders
affirmed
his
candidacy.
Respondent
demonstrated
the
filing
the
certificate
of
authorization
merely
confirmed
the
intent
of
the
Democratic
Party
and
respondent
to
ensure
respondent
was
the
Democratic
Party
candidate
for
the
28th
Assembly,
and
was
consistent
with
the
purpose
and
legislative
intent
of
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
(
Id
.
at
630
["Of
paramount
importance
is
that
the
will
of
the
party
committee
of
the
political
subdivision
involved
is
expressed"].)
Petitioner
failed
to
sufficiently
rebut
respondent's
arguments.
Petitioner's
argument
that
the
Election
Law
must
be
strictly
construed
does
not
create
a
viable
cause
of
action,
as
he
failed
to
demonstrate
there
were
facially
invalid
filings
that
violated
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
.
Petitioner
concedes
that
respondent
is
a
member
of
the
Democratic
Party,
and
based
on
that
concession
the
designating
petitions
would
be
valid.
Therefore,
petitioner
failed
to
demonstrate
the
subsequent
filing
of
the
certification
of
authorization
caused
legal
inconsistencies,
as
both
respondent
and
the
Board
of
Elections
clearly
affirmed
the
legal
and
proper
paperwork
showed
respondent
was
a
member
of
and
candidate
for
the
28th
Assembly
as
a
Democratic
Party
candidate.
Based
on
the
relevant
case
law,
the
filing
of
both
designating
petitions
as
a
Democratic
Party
candidate
and
a
certificate
of
authorization
and
acceptance
from
the
Democratic
Party
did
not
create
any
legal
inconsistencies.
Petitioner's
argument
that
strictly
construing
Election
Law
§
6-120(3)
would
require
invalidation
of
respondent's
designating
petitions
is
without
merit,
as
there
is
no
plain
statutory
language
to
support
that
conclusion
and
the
act
of
filing
a
certificate
of
authorization
is
strictly
an
affirmative
action
by
a
political
party
asserting
its
chosen
candidate
for
office.
Petitioner's
sole
argument
whether
the
subsequent
filing
of
the
certificate
of
authorization
somehow
invalidated
the
otherwise
proper
designating
petitions
is
unsupported
by
relevant
statutory
or
case
law.
This
Court
notes
that
upon
review
of
the
petition,
petitioner's
citations
were
either
for
New
York
cases
that
were
general
election
law
matters
and
inapplicable
to
the
facts
in
this
case,
or
to
nonexistent
case
law.
Respondent's
argument
that
the
case
law
petitioner
presented
was
AI
hallucinations
and
fabricated
has
some
merit,
but
since
respondent
did
not
seek
sanctions,
there
is
no
reason
for
this
Court
to
render
a
ruling
on
this
argument.
Finally,
petitioner
argues
respondent,
an
incumbent
Assembly
Member,
should
be
fully
familiar
with
the
election
law
and
should
have
checked
to
see
if
his
party
affiliation
had
been
changed
prior
to
filing
the
certificate
of
authorization.
He
further
argues
challenging
candidates,
such
as
himself,
are
routinely
removed
from
the
electoral
process
due
to
ministerial
errors
that
render
petitions
facially
deficient.
While
the
Election
Law
may
be
cumbersome
and
strictly
construed
both
administratively
and
in
judicial
decisions,
the
intent
is
to
ensure
that
the
will
of
the
people
is
upheld
and
to
maintain
integrity
in
our
electoral
process.
As
petitioner
failed
to
demonstrate
a
valid
cause
of
action
exists
under
controlling
statutory
or
case
law,
and
fails
to
rebut
respondent's
evidence
that
the
will
of
the
Democratic
Party
District
Leaders
was
effectuated
when
filing
the
certificate
of
authorization
to
address
the
unique
circumstances
of
respondent's
party
status,
respondent's
motion
to
dismiss
is
granted.
*5
Accordingly,
Respondent-Candidate
Andrew
D.
Hevesi's
motion
for
an
Order
dismissing
the
Petition
of
Petitioner-
Aggrieved
Candidate
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi
pursuant
to
CPLR
§
3211(a)(7)
is
granted.
It
is
hereby
ORDERED
and
ADJUDGED
Petitioner-Aggrieved
Candidate
Jonathan
David
Rinaldi's
petition
is
dismissed.
Dated:
April
27,
2026
ENTER:
Hon.
Tracy
Catapano-Fox,
J.S.C.
All
Citations
---
N.Y.S.3d
----,
2026
WL
1279715
End
of
Document
©
2026
Thomson
Reuters.
No
claim
to
original
U.S.
Government
Works.
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access