All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion May 26, 2026

Matter of Miriville-Shahzada v. Board of Elections in the City of N.Y.

── Matter of Miriville-Shahzada v. Board of Elections in the City of N.Y. ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Matter of Miriville-Shahzada v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y. - 2026 NY Slip Op 03255 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Matter of Miriville-Shahzada v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y.</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03255</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Second Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>In the Matter of Marie Miriville-Shahzada, appellant,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Board of Elections in the City of New York, et al., respondents, Linda Lupia, respondent-respondent.</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department</p> <p>Decided on May 21, 2026</p> <p>2026-04723, (Index No. 517272/26)</p> <p>Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.</p> <p>Linda Christopher</p> <p>William G. Ford</p> <p>Laurence L. Love, JJ.</p> <span>[*1]</span> <p>DECISION &amp; ORDER</p> <p>In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating the petitioner as a candidate in a primary election to be held on June 23, 2026, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 46th Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated May 13, 2026. The final order, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition and dismissed the proceeding.</p> <p>ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.</p> <p>On May 8, 2026, the final day that this proceeding could be commenced, the petitioner commenced this proceeding against Linda Lupia, Joseph Santangelo, Chris McCreight, and the Board of Elections in the City of New York (hereinafter the BOE) pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating the petitioner as a candidate in a primary election to be held on June 23, 2026, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly for the 46th Assembly District (hereinafter the designating petition). The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the BOE improperly invalidated certain signatures on the designating petition, which resulted in the BOE determining that the designating petition was invalid because it contained fewer than the requisite number of signatures.</p> <p>On May 10, 2026, the petitioner submitted to the Supreme Court an exhibit she sought to include with the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition purporting to identify 18 additional signatures she contended the BOE also erred in invalidating. Lupia opposed on the ground, among others, that the petitioner's submission on May 10, 2026, should not be considered. In a final order dated May 13, 2026, the court, after a hearing, denied the petition, inter alia, to validate the designating petition and dismissed the proceeding. In the final order, the court did not consider the petit
CourtListener · May 21, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}