Background
Philip Ramos and another petitioner brought a special proceeding under Election Law § 16-102 to remove Dennis J. Barravecchio from the June 23, 2026 Conservative Party primary ballot. Barravecchio had filed a certificate accepting the party’s designation as a candidate for the New York State Assembly’s 6th District. The petitioners sought to invalidate the underlying designating petition and direct the Suffolk County Board of Elections to remove his name.
Barravecchio moved under CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the challenge as asserted by Ramos. He contended that Ramos had not properly verified the petition. Verification is a sworn confirmation that a pleading’s factual allegations are true, and Election Law § 16-116 requires a proceeding under article 16 to be heard on a verified petition. New York decisions describe that requirement as jurisdictional, a characterization that ordinarily makes a defect potentially fatal in an election case’s compressed timetable.
Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied Barravecchio’s dismissal request. It also granted the requested ballot relief, invalidated the designating petition, and directed the Board of Elections to remove Barravecchio’s name. Barravecchio appealed from those portions of the final order. The Second Department’s decision focused on whether he had preserved the verification objection, rather than revisiting the merits of the ballot designation.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department unanimously affirmed. Although Election Law § 16-116 makes verification jurisdictional, the panel held that dismissal was not warranted under the particular circumstances because Barravecchio did not exercise due diligence in notifying Ramos of the alleged defect. The court relied on CPLR 3022, which governs how a party responds to a defective verification, and on election cases applying its prompt-notice requirement.
CPLR 3022 allows a recipient to treat an inadequately verified pleading as a nullity, but only if the recipient gives notice with due diligence. That procedure matters even when the underlying verification requirement is jurisdictional. By failing to reject the petition promptly on that ground, Barravecchio lost the ability to obtain dismissal based on the alleged deficiency. The decision therefore separates the importance of the verification requirement from the procedural obligation to raise a defect without delay.
The panel also noted that Barravecchio did not allege prejudice to any substantial right from the claimed verification problem. That observation reinforced the result, although the holding principally rested on his failure to give timely notice. His remaining arguments were either not properly before the appellate court or did not require consideration, leaving intact the order invalidating the designating petition and removing him from the primary ballot.
Key Takeaways
- A verification requirement may be jurisdictional, but an opponent can still waive a defect by failing to provide prompt notice under CPLR 3022.
- Election litigators should inspect service papers immediately and state any verification objection at once; article 16’s accelerated calendar leaves little room to cure a delayed response.
- A party invoking defective verification should identify concrete prejudice where possible and ensure that every appellate contention was preserved in Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
The ruling is a practical warning for New York election lawyers because ballot proceedings move on exceptionally short schedules and procedural mistakes can decide whether a candidate remains on the ballot. Ramos confirms that calling a statutory requirement jurisdictional does not eliminate the objecting party’s own obligation to follow CPLR 3022. Counsel who waits may forfeit an otherwise substantial threshold defense.
The decision also has broader value for New York litigators handling verified pleadings. It illustrates the distinction between a defect in an adversary’s paper and the mechanism for taking advantage of that defect. Immediate review, written notice, a clear record of timing, and preservation of arguments at the trial level are essential. For campaigns and election boards, the ruling promotes rapid identification of curable problems rather than allowing verification objections to surface only after the merits have been litigated.
Practitioners should build a simple intake protocol for article 16 papers: record the exact time and method of service, compare the verification against the statutory form, notify opposing counsel immediately of any claimed defect, and seek prompt judicial guidance when the parties disagree. Because ballot litigation can become moot as an election approaches, a clean chronology may be as important as the underlying legal argument.