SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of
DIANE HASLETT-RUDIANO, as the Chairman, and
HENRY LALLAVE, as the Secretary of the 2015 Re- POST-TRIAL BRIEF
organization meeting, respectively, of the Kings County
Republican Party County Committee, and, as members of
the said committee and, Diane Haslett-Rudiano, as duly
elected Secretary of the said committee as a member of
the duly elected slate of officers thereof,
Petitioners,
-againstIndex No. 700004/2015
The duly elected slate of officers
of the Kings County Republican Committee,
THEODORE J. GHORRA, ARNALDO A. FERRARO,
DIANE-HASLETT
RUDIANO,
THOMAS
MCCARTHY, GLENN P. NOCERA, DEWEY M.
GOLKIN,
JOSEPH M. ELHILOW, ROBERT L. HOWE ,
LORENZO LUGARA, RAYMOND V. RANALETTA,
STAMATIS LILIKAKIS, CHRISTIAN ARLIA,
ROY J. BERTHIAUME, HOSEPH M. GIBILARO,
GENE HART, TRISHA ALLEYNE, JOHN H. ABIHABI, GEORGEA C. KONTZAMANIS, CARL
CALLER, JOHN F. QUAGLIONE, VICTOR V. BEST,
MATTHEW G. WILLIAMS, ANTHONY G.
BEHETTE,BRIAN DOHERTY, JENNIFER V. DOSS,
CHING LEE WONGHO, VIVIANA VAZQUEZHERNANDEZ,ANNMARIE D. GUIFFRE, CELESTE
ANDRUZZI, STEVEN L. ANDERSON, and Theodore
Gorra,
as
chairman
of
the
KINGS
COUNTYREPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Diane HaslettRudiano, as SECRETARY OF THE KINGS COUNTY
REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, and the KINGS
COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, and the
Committees thereof,
The Purportedly elected slate of officers Of the Kings
County Republican Committee ARNALDO A.
FERRARO, DANNY ESQUILIN, LUCRETIA REGINA
POTTER, STEPHEN MARESCA, JACK BENTON,
RONALD DANGELO, MATTHEW T. FAIRLEY,
1

ROBERT
L. HOWE, LORENZO LUGARA,
RAYMOND
V.
RANALETTA,
STAMATIS
LILIKAKIS,
CHRISTIAN
ARLIA,
ROY
BERTHIAUME, JOSEPH M. GILILARO,GENE
HART. TRISHA ALLEYNE, JOHN H. ABI-HABI,
GEORGEA
C.
KONTZAMANIS,
CARL
CALLER,JOHN F. QUAGLIONE, VICTOR V. BEST,
MATTHEW G. WILLIAMS, ANTHONY G.
BEHETTE, BRIAN COHERTY, JENNIFER V. DOSS,
CHING LEE WONG HO, VIVIANA VASQUEZHERNANDEZ, ANITA OBRIEN, ROSEMARIE
MARKGRAF, STEVEN L. ANDERSON, and
Arnaldo A. Ferraro, as purported chairman of the KINGS
COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Lucretia
Regina-Potter, as purported SECRETARY OF THE
KINGS COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, and
The purported KINGS COUNTY REPUBLICAN
COMMITTEE, and the Committees thereof and
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK,
and
THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
------------------------------------------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF
ARNALDO A. FERRARO & DANY L. ESQUILIN,
PETITIONERS,
-AGAINSTIndex No. 700005/2015
THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK,
THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
AND THEODORE J. GHORRA, DIANE HASLETT-

RUDIANO, THOMAS MCCARTHY, GLENN P.

NOCERA, DEWEY M. GOLKIN, JOSEPH M.
ELHILOW, ROBERT L. HOWE, LORENZO
2

LUGARA, RAYMOND V. RANALETTA, STAMATIS

LILIKAKIS, CHRISTIAN ARLIA, ROY J.
BERTHIAUME, CHING YEE K. WONGHO, JOSEPH
M. GIBILARO, GENE HART, TRISHA ALLEYNE,
JOHN H. ABI-HABIB, GEORGEA C.
KONTZAMANIS, CARL CALLER, JOHN F.
QUAGLIONE, VICTOR V. BEST, MATTHEW G.
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY G. BEHETTE, BRIAN
DOHERTY, JENNIFER V. DOSS, VIVIANA
VAZQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, ANNMARIE D. GUIFFRE,
CELESTE ANDRUZZI, AND STEVEN L. ANDERSON
RESPONDENTS.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
The trial testimony in the within matter has clearly demonstrated that the within action is
a case involving a conspiracy to defraud and deceive members of the Kings County Republican
County Committee into believing (a) that the post-card proxy they received in the mail was not
proper or was incorrect in some manner; (b) that they were deceptively being directed by the
Kings County Republican County Committee through the use of a robo-call to disregard the
post-card proxy; and that (c) they would receive an official 8 x 11 inch proxy in a few days.
And even more convincing proof of this conspiracy to commit fraud, is the testimony of James
McClelland, a staffer for New York State Senator Martin Golden, the individual who wrote the
script, recorded the robo-calls, and had them sent to out to hundreds of members of the Kings
County Republican County Committee, where he admits under oath that he wrote the script,
recorded the calls and sent them out, using the word official proxy when he knew, that there is
no such thing as an official proxy.
The actions of Senator Martin Golden, James McClelland, Ted Ghorra, Diane Rudiano,
Henry Lalave, and members of Goldens staff and other individuals (the Golden Team) acting
at his request both before, during and after the relevant convention of the Kings County
Republican Committee, clearly set forth a consistent pattern and a conspiracy to fraudulently,
3

maliciously, willfully and illegally force or change the outcome of the Convention, in a manner
consistent with electoral fraud and vote rigging.
The evidence at Trial proved by clear and convincing evidence:
a)

that the Golden Team, andothers acting on their behalf in circulating and

collecting proxies, acted in concert to engage in a fraudulent telecommunications campaign

through the use of at least three (3) robocalls to a majority if not all of the members of the
County Committee, that attempted for the purpose of deceiving, misleading and confusing duly
elected County Committee Members from exercising their right to execute and submit a proxy
which was previously mailed to them, together with the Official Notice of the County Committee
Convention.
The script of the first two of these robocalls were as follows;
Republican County Committee Member: Please do not sign and return the post
card proxy you recently received in the mail. Over the next few days your district
leader or a representative will contact you personally to have you sign the 8 by
11 official proxy. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and service to the
republican party. Please see a copy of the Transcribed robocalls annexed hereto
as Exhibit B.
b)

that James McClelland fraudulently and deceptively failed to identify himself as

being a member of the staff of Senator Marty Golden who was publicly supporting Ted Ghorra
for County Chairman (and for whom he was collecting and carrying Proxies).
c)

that James McCelland fraudulently and deceptively stated (at the end of the calls):

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and service to the Republican Party. This message
was specifically intended to make the recipient of the two initial calls incorrectly believe that the
calls were sanctioned by the Kings County Republican County Committee (by the Chairman or
other officials of the County Committee) and the individual or individuals who sent out the

original proxies to them by mail. They were also directed in these same robocalls not to sign and
retutn the proxies.
d)

that James McClelland, by this deception, purposefully intended to make the

recipients of the calls believe that the proxy received in the mail was either wrong, incorrect,
contained errors, or for some reason was not the official proxy which he or she needed to sign
and return, and that they would be receiving a call from someone who would bring them the
official proxy.
e)

that James McCelland and the Golden Team through the robocall and their actions

relating to the distribution, solicitation and colletction of proxies was purposefully intended to
trick members of the County Committee by attempting to make the recipients of the phone calls
believe that the proxy he or she received, which was the size of a small index card, was not the
official proxy because the Official Proxy purportedly had to be 8 by 11 inches.
f)

that James McClelland also fraudulently and deceptively directed the recipients of

the calls not to sign the proxy received in the mail with the statement: Please do not sign and
return the post card Proxy you recently received in the mail, since they would be receiving the
official proxy in a few days from their district leader or representative;
g)

that James McCelland and the Golden Team intended to, and succeeded in

confusing members of the County Committee and suppressing

the vote in a fraudulent,

deceptive, and illegal manner, since as of the date the robocalls were made, only a few of the
initial Proxies which were mailed by the County Committee were returned in the mail by the
membership.
As discussed previously, as admitted to by James McClelland, and as the court is aware,
there is no such thing as an official proxy. The Rules of the County Committee simply do not

identify any proxy as being the official proxy and neither custom nor case law identifies what
is or is not an official proxy. By using such terminology, James McClelland clearly crossed
the line and engaged in actions which were deceptive, misleading, and intended to deter duly
elected County Committee Members from executing and returning proxies that they received in
the mail.
It is clear that anyone including Sen. Golden and his minions had every right to call
the members of the County Committee and tell them that he was supporting a specific candidate,
such as Ted Ghorra, or even that they should not sign the proxies giving a particular person the
right to cast their respective votes at the convention if the caller had identified himself, and
been truthful and honest about his motives. However, it is respectfully submitted that the
aforementioned fraudulent actions of the Golden team purposely intended to suppress the vote,
severely impacted the efforts of the County Committee and its Chairman, and was illegal under
the Election Law. In any event, the County Committee, as well as its Credentials Committee,
had every right to guard against these improprieties, and block such activities from impeding the
rights of duly-elected voting members of the County Committee most of which attended the
convention.
What took place next on the part of the Golden Team when they acted in concert to
engage in a fraudulent door-to-door and telephone campaign by personally appearing at the
homes and apartments of County Committee Members in an attempt to deter them from
returning the Proxy which was mailed, and having them execute a new 8 by 11 Proxy which
was stated by them to be the official proxy of the County Committee that had been identified
in the aforementioned robocalls. These particular acts are egregious and illegal and tantamount
to election fraud, and in and of themselves, demonstrate that the entire proxy collection process

by Golden, and others on his behalf was, at a minimum, permeated with fraud, and a at a
minimum, were subjected to numerous irregularities.
In addition to the above egregious actions, the Golden Team fraudulently submitted
numerous Proxies which were deficient, including but not limited to, proxies containing
improper names, improper addresses, containing different-colored ink, erasures or alterations, in
addition to proxies from members of other political parties.
The evidence shows in sum,that the Golden Team engaged in a fraudulent campaign to
create a chilling effect on the election process of the County Committee Members. Rather than
argue the merits of their Candidates experience, credentials and background, they attempted to
fraudulently convey the sense that the proxy which was previously mailed to them was defective
or not official and that if they used the proxy which was mailed to them they would somehow
be disenfranchised. Use of the word official proxy in robocalls and through personal
interaction with members of the County Committee was specifically intended to be misleading
fraudulent and deceptive, particularly since there is no such thing as an official proxy just
valid and invalid Proxies.
Statement of Facts
At a duly called meeting of the Kings County Republican County Committee, with a
quorum present, a slate of Officers was elected by the majority of the vote. At this meeting, the
Petitioner, ARNALDO A. FERRARO, was elected as Chairman of the Kings Republican County
Committee and Petitioner DANY L. ESQUILIN was elected as Vice Chairman of the Kings
County Republican County Committee. At said meeting, the previously duly-elected County
Chairman, and Chairman at the time of the events at issue, Craig Eaton, appointed Gerald

OBrien as temporary Chairman and Gladys Pemberton as temporary Secretary, and the meeting
then proceeded pursuant to the rules of the Kings County Republican County Committee.
On October 1, 2015 as required by the Election Law of the State of New York, including,
but not limited to 2-106, 2-112 and 2-114, a Certificate of Names and Post Office Addresses
of Officers Elected at the Party Organization Meeting of the Kings County Republican Party
County Committee and a Certificate of Adoption of Rules of the Kings County Republican Party
County Committee (a/k/a Rules of the Kings County Republican Party) were duly filed in the
New York City Board of Elections. On October 2, 2015 as required by the Election Law of the
State of New York, including, but not limited to 2-106, 2-112 and 2-114, the Certificate of
Names and Post Office Addresses of Officers Elected at the Party Organization Meeting of the
Kings County Republican Party County Committee and a Certificate of Adoption of Rules of the
Kings County Republican Party County Committee (a/k/a Rules of the Kings County Republican
Party) were duly filed in the New York State Board of Elections by the true and rightful County
Chairman, ARNALDO A. FERRARO and Secretary Lucretia Regina-Potter.
Nevertheless, three days later, on October 5, 2015, Respondents Theodore Ghorra and
Diane Haslett-Rudiano alleged to have filed and/or caused to be filed a purported certified
Certificate of Names and Post Office Addresses of the Officers Elected at the Organization
Meeting of the Kings County Republican Party Committee with the offices of the Board of
Elections in the City of New York and the Board of Elections of the State of New York, however
as of this date, although duly demanded by this Honorable Court, no proof of filings in a timely
manner upon the New York State Board of Elections have been filed with this Honorable Court.1
The Certificate filed with the New York City Board of Elections falsely certified that the

The overnight mailing provided by the Rudiano group during the hearing in this matter was provided long after the
deadline imposed by the court.

individual Respondents had been elected as officers of the County Committee, including, inter
alia,
a. Respondent Ghorra as Chairman,
b. Petitioner Ferraro as Vice Chairman,
c. Respondent Haslett-Rudiano as Secretary,
d. Respondent Thomas McCarthy as Treasurer,
e. Respondent Glenn P. Nocera as Sergeant-At-Arms,
f. Respondent Dewey M. Golkin as Parliamentarian,
g. Respondent Joseph M. Elhilow as Law Committee Chairman
h. Respondent Annmarie D. Giuffre as Community Outreach Committee Vice
Chairman for Education, and
i. Respondent Celeste Andruzzi as Community Outreach Committee Vice
Chairman for Retirees.
The purported certificate was acknowledged by Respondent Diane Haslett-Rudiano as
chairman and respondent Henry Lallave as secretary. The notary public before whom the
acknowledgements were sworn was Khorshed A. Chordhury, who was also an active participant
in the meeting. The certificate was false for a host of reasons to be outlined below, including, but
not limited to the fact that neither Respondent Haslett-Rudiano nor Lallave were ever
empowered at any time to act in any capacity whatsoever as chairman and secretary at the
meeting of the County Committee held on September 30, 2015, nor were either empowered with
any authority whatsoever to cause any document to be filed with the New York State Board of
Elections or the New York City Board of Elections on behalf of the County Committee or its
duly elected officers after said meeting.

It is apparent from the aforesaid filing of a false instrument that the Respondents intended
to usurp and exercise the offices and powers of the County Committee and falsely hold
themselves out as the rightful holders of said offices and powers.
At the Convention, pursuant to the terms of the Rules of the Kings County Republican
County Committee, it was the responsibility of the Credentials Committee, to review and
determine the validity of the Credentials, such Credentials to include photo identification from
those attending the Convention, and the proxies submitted on behalf of those who would not be
in attendance. After painstakingly reviewing the proxies, Credentials Committee determined that
the Respondents proxy campaign was tantamount to electoral fraud and vote rigging; that the
majority of the proxies submitted by the Respondents were fraudulent, or were gathered through
fraudulent conduct and/or means; and that Respondents illegally interfered with the election
process and County Committee Convention.
The evidence at Trial showed that the the Committee found that such fraudulent conduct
included specifically but was not limited to the following:
a) Engaging in a fraudulent telecommunications campaign through the use of at least
three (3) robocalls to a majority, if not all of the members of the Kings County
Republican County Committee, that attempted to deceive, mislead, confuse and deter
duly elected County Committee Members from exercising their right to execute and
submit a Proxy which was previously mailed to them together with the Official
Notice of the County Committee Convention.2
b) By engaging in a fraudulent door to door campaign by having representatives of the
Respondents personally appear at the homes/apartments of County Committee

The script of the first two of these robocalls is provided above.

10

Members in an attempt to deceive, mislead, confuse and deter them from returning
the Proxy which was mailed to them, and through fraud and deception having them
execute a new "8 by 11" Proxy which was stated by them to be the official proxy as
same was identified in the robocalls which were made to such County Committee
Members;
c)

By fraudulently submitting Proxies dated outside of the presence of the member of

County Committee and/or dated some days after the Proxy was fraudulently obtained;

d)

By fraudulently submitting numerous Proxies which were deficient, including but not
limited to, Proxies containing improper names;

e)

By engaging in a fraudulent campaign specifically designed to create a chilling effect

on the County Committee Members . Rather than argue the merits of their
Candidates' experience, credentials and background, they attempted to fraudulently
convey the sense that the Proxy which was previously mailed to them was defective
or not "Official" and that if they used the Proxy which was mailed to them they would
somehow be disenfranchised. Use of the word official proxy in robocalls and
through personal interaction with members of the County Committee is specifically
misleading fraudulent and deceptive, since there is no such thing as an "Official"
Proxy, just valid and invalid Proxies;

f)

By engaging in a fraudulent door to door campaign by having representatives of the

Respondents personally appear at the homes/apartments of County Committee
Members in an attempt to deceive, mislead, confuse and deter them from returning
the Proxy which was mailed to them, and through fraud and deception having them
execute a new "8 by 11" Proxy which was stated by them to be the official proxy

11

as same was identified in the robocalls which were made to such County Committee
Members;
g)

By the Respondents, and/or their representatives, telling members of the County

Committee to sign, but not date the Proxy. This action, by definition, invalidated the
Proxies by permitting tampering, fraud and post-dating of said Proxies. The fact that
these Proxies were left undated invalidated the Proxies; the simple act of post-dating
a previously-signed Proxy, also, was by definition an act of fraud.

The evidence at Trial showed that the Convention proceeded as required by the Rules and
at the end a Motion was made to Adjourn, such Motion being seconded, at which time the
official Convention was adjourned.
As shown at the Trial, it was at this time that a rogue meeting was held on the street
corner by Ted Ghorra and others loyal to him: a meeting that was not properly scheduled,
noticed, called, opened or held and for which there is no legal right to be held. After the meeting
of the Kings County Republican Committee was duly adjourned, Golden, Rudiano, and several
other people within their cabal continually requested that they be allowed to rent the hall where
the noticed and scheduled convention was held, in order to hold an illegal, unnoticed,
unsanctioned, unauthorized and rogue meeting. When they were turned away by the manager of
Remsen Hall, the catering hall where the official convention was held, they convened on the
sidewalk, and without any notice to the members of the Kings County Republican County
Committee members, as required by the Rules of County Committee, decided to conduct an
impromptu rump meeting on the street corner at the intersection of Remsen Avenue and Lenox
Road. It should be noted that in addition to there being no notice of this meeting given, there is
also no authority under the Rules to permit such a meeting since the Rules specifically reserve

12

the right of only the outgoing County Chairman to convene a reorganizational meeting and
convention of the County Committee. Temporary Chair of the adjourned convention, Gerald
OBrien, continually voiced that this group was holding an illegal rump meeting, but at such
meeting, went forward to illegally elect another Chair and other officers of the County
Committee. Thereafter, defective and illegal notices of these purported elections were filed with
the Boards of Elections of the City and State of New York, by Diane Rudiano, the purported
Chair of the rump meeting.
Thereafter the within action was commenced as well as a related proceeding filed under
Kings County Index No. 70000_/2015. Each case was filed for the purpose of declaring their
slate of offices valid and the other slate invalid.

13

ARGUMENT
THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR A COUNTY COMMITTEEIN AN ELECTIONLAW
MATTER

The Credentials Committee was charged under the Rules of the Kings County Republican
Party with reviewing the Credentials of those attending the Convention and the proxies of those
who chose not to attend the Convention.3 Historically, and as provided for in the Rules, the
validation and/or invalidation of proxies is a matter of internal party governance provided by
statute and outside the purview of judicial interference. As a creation of Articles 1 and 2 of the
Election Law, the County Committee of the Kings County Republican Party has the authority to
adopt its own rules and may, by those rules, establish any number of committees to carry on the
activity of the party pursuant to Election Law 2-110 and 2-114.
Article I, Section 6 of the Rules of the Kings County Republican Party provides, in relevant part:
[T]he Chair shall appoint a Credentials Committee . . . who shall have the sole
authority to check the credentials of the members of the County Committee.
In short, there is nothing prohibitive in the Election Law or any other statutory
directive that prevents the Credentials Committee, which pursuant to the Partys Rules has the
authority to check credentials at a County Convention, from recognizing only those credentials,
namely the proxies, it chooses based upon any criteria it may set so long as it does not violate the
law. (See Wong v Cooke, 87 AD3d at 660 [App Div 2d Dept 2011] (holding that the trial court
erred, inter alia, in invalidating the certificate of authorization issued to Eugene Cooke for the
public office of Member of the Town Council because the Huntington Republican Committee
designating meeting was conducted in accordance with the Party Rules). Therefore, the Supreme
Court erred in ruling that the Credentials Committee could not invalidate 170 proxy votes it
3

As has been argued in this matter, whether a person is in attendance at a County Committee meeting or having a
proxy submitted through another person, the power to review credentials is equally applicable to a proxy.

14

believed were procured through fraud because the Credentials Committee was simply exercising
its right to control its internal affairs pursuant to the Party Rules.
It is unquestionably the black-letter law of this state that a County Committee of a
political

party

is

creature

of

statute

subject

to

regulation

under

the Election Law. See Election Law 2-104; Terenzi v. Westchester County Committee of the
Conservative Party of New York State, 171 Misc.2d 93653 N.Y.S.2d 483 (Sup. Ct. Westchester
County 1996). Matter of Littig v Democratic County Comm., 179 Misc 520; see also, Matter of
Battipaglia v Executive Comm., 20 Misc 2d 226, 228 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1959]; Matter of
Casey v. Nuttall, 62 Misc 2d 386, 389 [Sup Ct, Rensselaer County 1970]).
Political

parties

are

afforded

wide

latitude

in

adopting

Rules

for

party

governance. Election Law 2-114 permits committees to prepare Rules for governing the party
within its political unit.

In permitting political parties to formulate their own Rules, the

Legislature manifested an intention of general noninterference with political party

government. Terenzi, 171 Misc.2d 93653 N.Y.S.2d 483; Matter of Stewart v Natrella, 217 AD2d
599; Matter of Danielewicz. v. Aurigema, 90 A.D.2d 667 (4d Dept., 1982) (Absent illegality,
there is a general policy of noninterference with the internal workings of a political party.)
Courts of this state have repeatedly ruled that their duty is not to resolve disputes arising out of
rule adoption within political parties. Rather, these disputes are best resolved by the parties
themselves. The duty of the courts is to make sure that political parties comply with the law and
as such, judicial intervention should be the last remedy sought when such conflicts arise within
political parties. Internal issues arising within political parties are best resolved within the party
organization itself and judicial involvement should only be undertaken as a last resort. Matter of
Bachmann v. Coyne, 99 A.D.2d 742 471 N.Y.S.2d 648, Matter of Engel v. Tutunjian, 129

15

Misc.2d 987, 988, 494 N.Y.S.2d 813. The court may not exercise a dispensing power based on
the principles of abstract justice fitting the particular case. It may only see that the requirements
of the law are complied with. Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers, 254 N.Y. 91, 95, 171 N.E. 917. The
only caveat to this principle is that such Rules cannot conflict with statutory directives. Matter of
Kahler v McNab, 48 N.Y.2d 625; Matter of Lugo v Board of Elections, 123 Misc 2d 764.
Indeed, it is firmly established in the Second Department that except where expressly
governed by legislation, the internal organization and authority of a political party is governed by
the party Rules. (Matter of Bachmann v. DeFronzo, 164 A.D.2d 926, 928, 559 N.Y.S.2d 586
(2d Dept., 1990, citing Election Law 2114). 49 N.Y. Jur. 2d Elections 35. A party
committee may adopt Rules governing its organization and its actions, provided they do not
contravene either statutory or constitutional provisions. 49 N.Y. Jur. 2d Elections 35. Simply
put, there is nothing prohibitive in the Election Law - or any other statutory directive - that
prevents the Credentials Committee, who pursuant to the Party's Rules are the sole authority to
check credentials at a County Convention, from recognizing only those credentials it chooses
based upon any criteria it may set so long as it does not violate the law.
New York courts have consistently recognized that under the Election Law, [t]he New
York State Legislature manifested an intent of general noninterference with the internal affairs of
political parties when it authorized party committees to formulate their own rules and organize
themselves [and] [t]he courts should be most reluctant to interfere with the internal affairs of a
political party. (Bloom v Notaro, 67 NY2d 1048, 1049 [1986] (holding that the appellate court
erred in appointing a supervisor with full power to rule on all matters presented to the State
Committee of the Liberal Party during a nominating convention based on the legislative intent of
noninterference with the internal affairs of political parties)); (Matter of Bachmann v Coyne, 99

16

AD2d 742 [App Div 2d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Lehrer v Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059, 1060-1061
[App Div 2d Dept 2007]; Matter of Independence Party State Comm. of State of N.Y. v Berman,
28 AD3d 556, 558 [App Div 2d Dept 2006]; Terenzi v. Westchester County Committee of the
Conservative Party of New York State, 171 Misc.2d 93653 N.Y.S.2d 483 [Sup. Ct. Westchester
County 1996]). Unless a party or its leaders have violated [the Election Law] or the partys own
rules adopted in accordance with law, or otherwise [have] violat[ed] the rights of party members
or the electorate, judicial intervention is unwarranted because disputes arising out of rule
adoption within political parties are best resolved by the parties themselves. (Harding v
Harrington, 127 Misc 2d 5, 5-6 [Sup Ct NY County 1984], affd 104 AD2d 544 [App Div 1st
Dept 1984]; see Matter of Bachmann v DeFronzo, 164 AD2d 926, 928 [App Div 2d Dept 1990]).
Wong v Cooke, 87 AD3d 659, 660 [App Div 2d Dept 2011]). Indeed, it is firmly established in
the Second Department that except where expressly governed by legislation, the internal
organization and authority of a political party is governed by the party rules. (Matter of
Bachmann v. DeFronzo, 164 A.D.2d 926, 928, 559 N.Y.S.2d 586 (2d Dept., 1990, citing
Election Law 2114).
At bar, under the case law cited above, this is clearly and simply a matter which must be
left to the Kings County Republican County Committee, and since the Rules of the Committee
give sole jurisdiction to the Credentials Committee to determine the validity of the Proxies
submitted, this Honorable Court must leave the decision as to the validity of the Proxies to the
Credentials Committee. Since the Credentials Committee rendered its decision, this decision
should be recognized by this Court.
It should also be noted that Petitioners apparently have no issue with the Brooklyn
Republican Partys Rules, as their competing filings adopted the same set of Rules specifically,

17

the Brooklyn Republican Partys Rules that have been in effect for every County Committee
Convention since 2007. This clearly indicates that Petitioners have no issue with the set of Rules
adopted by Republican Party and as such, judicial intervention is not appropriate in this matter.
As per the numerous holdings of New York State Courts, this matter will be best resolved within
the party and absent any judicial intervention.

18

POINT II
NO DUE PROCESS SHOULD BE AFFORDED TO COUNTY COMMITTEE PROXIES
It was argued at Trial that invalidated Proxies themselves are to be accorded their own
individual due process rights, and essentially, are to be given the same rights as any person
appearing to vote. In effect, it was presented to the court that a hearing should have been held as
to each and every Proxy that was placed into question by the Credentials Committee, even
without the presence of the non-voting County Committee member whose Proxy was at stake.
This is an impossible, unsupported scenario and is not supported by any case law or other
authority. It is merely an attempt to create a smokescreen to deter from the true facts relating to
these proxies. In addition, this court must take note of the fact that each of the individuals that
submitted a Proxy, was mailed the Notice of the Meeting and had an absolute right to attend the
Meeting to cast their vote personally.
In fact, it is respectfully submitted that the Proxies of non-voting members of a County
Committee also are governed by that County Committees Rules. Otherwise, the Election Law
does not contemplate any rights of due process that one would expect from a public election
process. Specifically on point on this issue is the case of Donnelly v Curcio, 284 AD2d 460, 460
[2d Dept 2001], citing Election Law 2114, which held that: [i]t is firmly established that
except where expressly governed by legislation, the internal organization and authority of a
political party is governed by the party Rules. See also Matter of Bachmann v DeFronzo, 164
AD2d 926, 928 [2d Dept 1990].
In addition, the internal Rules applicable to a County Committee convention (which, by
definition, arises out of the by-law of the County Committee) is otherwise an area in which the
courts are loathe to intervene. Furthermore, if we were to consider the rights of the voting

19

members of a party at a County Committee convention, it may arguably be the case that the
voting member has certain rights to have his or her vote counted when he or she appears, offers
his or her credentials, and someone wishes to question such credentials. This is not the case for a
person that votes by a Proxy, and no identification process is in place. These issues too have
been decided within the court, and specifically, the Second Department in Conroy v. State
Committee of the Independence Party of New York, 2007 WL 2175897 (N.Y.Sup.), 5 aff'd on
other grounds, 43 A.D.3d 832, 840 N.Y.S.2d 913 (2d Dept. 2007), which held: A review of the
Election Law reveals that there is no provision related to the use of Proxies by political
committees. Accordingly, the court declines to annul the amendment related to this issue as it is
an internal party matter.
The competing "rump" slate would have the Court believe that it must intervene to protect
the due process rights of those members of county committee who purportedly signed Proxies
circulated by a State Senator, Marty Golden, who had his own personal and political interest in
the outcome. However, neither the Election Law nor the Courts make such a distinction. In fact,
the Election Law - and the Courts - do not intervene into matters governed by internal party
Rules, as evidenced by the holdings in the Second Department in Conroy and Terenzi.
Here, the internal party Rules state the parameters for the form of the Proxy and the means
by which they are to be vetted. Any "due process" afforded to the "rump" slate had taken place
under the Credentials Committee at the Convention, who had proper reasons to invalidate the
Proxies.

In good faith, the Credential Committee saw what at a minimum, appeared as

irregularities and did not have to hold hearings to determine whether fraud existed or not.
Rather, the Credentials Committee for the purpose of protecting its own internal process, and
prevent the possibility of fraud by certain individuals who sought to overpower the votes of

20

regular, everyday people most of whom were actually asserting their rights at the convention
itself. Now, the Rudiano slate comes before the court to address these alleged due process rights
which as the courts have ruled, are completely a matter to be addressed at the meeting, by the
Credentials Committee. They must now show that the actions of the Credentials Committee
were illegally nothing less. Arguendo, no such a showing can be made.
Moreover, the Ghorra slate has yet to put forth any evidence that the slate has standing to
argue a violation of due process committed against anyone but themselves.

At the outset, the

Court should note that none of the litigants held any proxies whatsoever.
It is our argument that persons who submit proxies have no substantive right to due
process, since the mechanism for the scheduling and operation of the County Committee Meeting
is different from types of meetings or elections where such due process rights exists. However, it
must also be noted that there is no evidence whatsoever from any proxy holder complaining of
how the Credentials Committee went about their business. The slate asserts that Martin Golden,
the proxyholder whom the Ghorra slate claims should be aggrieved by the actions of the
Credentials Committee, has not appeared herein. He is not a party to this action; was not called as
a witness; has offered no affidavit into evidence. And, tthere hasn't even been any direct
testimony offered by any person who offered their proxy to Martin Golden that s/he have had
his/her rights violated. In sum, at Trial there was no evidence submitted that proved any person
or party was deprived of any rights at all, let alone due process rights.
All that the Court has before them are the members of a slate who lost an election making
a due process claim on behalf of people to whom they have no relationship with or connection to
other than through a person who is not a party to the suit and who did not appear to offer any
credence to the assertion that those members of County Committee - or that the proxyholder

21

himself - has been deprived of his, her or their rights. And even then, those members of the slate,
depending upon their status and presence at the County Convention, must articulate a different
argument - which no one has made.
If Mr. Ghorra is claiming that he himself was deprived of his rights under the Party Rules,
this Court should take judicial notice that Mr. Ghorra was not then, and is not now, a member of
County Committee who had a right to appear or vote at the County Convention, which raises an
interesting issue all by itself as to how a person who is not even a member of the County
Committee can claim he has any rights at all under the Rules or due process
If those members of the Ghorra slate are claiming to have been deprived of rights for not
having their votes cast, and their right to vote was given by proxy to Martin Golden - who has
not appeared herein to articulate such a deprivation of rights, then those individuals should be
made to offer testimony as to how they have been adversely affected. Simply stated, the record
is silent on this point there was not one person who submitted a proxy testifying at the trial that
his or her rights were violated; that he or she was deprived of rights; or that he or she was
adeversely affected by anything that the Credentials Committee did or did not do. Even Ted
Ghorra did not testify.
If those members of the Ghorra slate who were in attendance at the County Convention
are claiming a deprivation of rights, then they should be made to explain how their individual
vote was prejudiced. To date, there is no claim that their vote as not taken during any roll call.
As no due process violation has been articulated, this Court must dismiss their Petition and
direct the Board of Elections of the City and State of New York to certify the duly elected slate
chaired by Ferraro.

22

POINT III
THAT PORTION OF THE GHORRA LAWSUIT SEEKING TO VALIDATE HIS LATE
CERTIFICATE MUST BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW
The lawsuit brought by the Ghorra slate seeks to validate a Certificate of Election for
officers of the Kings County Repubican Committee that it alleged was filed pursuant to the
Election Law. However, at the time of filing of this action, no such Certificate existed, as it was
filed at the NY State Board of Elections after commencement of this action sometime after the
deadline for submission to this court.
While this is not only a prima facie violation of the Election Law, it is simply impossible
for this Court to make a decision based upon a document that simply did not exist at the time of
filing, according the records at the NYS Board of Elections.
Additionally, as the Election Law proscribes a 10 day statute of limitations accruing from
the date of the Convention, there is no legal remedy for the Ghorra slate to amend this action to
include the untimely Certificate of Election. See: Election Law 16-104. See: Matter of
Rudiano v. Eaton Index No. 17848/2013 (Sup. Ct., Kings County 2014) (Election law matter
disputing the Certificate of Election filed after holding a County Convention could not be
amended after the 10-day statute of limitations accrued, and was therefore dismissed for failure
to name necessary parties)
Based on the foregoing, that portion of the Ghorra slate's suit seeking to validate a
Certificate that did not exist at the New York State Board of Elections must be dismissed as a
matter of law.

23

POINT IV
THE SUBMISSION OF THE GHORRA SLATE OF CANDIDATES MUST BE
INVALIDATED BECAUSE IT WAS THE PRODUCT OF A FRAUDULENT ROBOCALL
CAMPAIGN.
It is well-settled in this Court that a designating petition will be invalidated where the
candidate has participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud, See, e.g., Lavine v.
Imbroto, 98 A.D.3d 620 (2nd Dept 2012) (citing Matter of Finn v. Sherwood, 87 A.D.3d 1044,
1045 (2nd Dept 2011); Matter of Harris v. Duran, 76 A.D.3d 658, 659 (2nd Dept 2011)); Bonner
v. Negron, 87 A.D.3d 737, 739 (2011), including the fraudulent actions of the candidates agents.
Saitta v. Rivera, 264 A.D.2d 490, 490491 (2d Dep't 1999) (holding that a candidate in a primary
election was charged with knowledge of fraud in obtaining signatures for a designating petition
because his campaign coordinator was closely involved in obtaining fraudulent signatures). The
logical conclusion/extension of this precedent is that any subsequent actions arising from
fraudulent conduct taken by, or on behalf of a candidate, is also entirely invalid because it is the
product of such fraud.
The evidence at Trial was clear and convincing and the testimony alone of JAMES
MCCLELLAND, proves a fraudulent intent and fraudulent actions. He himself admits under
oath that he wrote the script, recorded the calls and sent them out, using the word official
proxy when he knew, that there is no such thing as an official proxy. Under current case law, as
a result of this fraudulent campaign to collect proxies, suppress the vote and deceive and defraud
members of the Kings County Republican County Committee, the Ghorra slate of candidates,
which votes included those from the robocall campaign, must be deemed invalid because it was
part and parcel the product of fraud. Consequently, the Ghorra slate of candidates must be found
invalid by this Court.

24

WHEREFORE, Respondents pray for a declaratory judgment for the following relief:
(a)

Deeming the certificate of the election of officers, as approved at the convention of the

County Committee on September 30, 2015, to be deemed effective, authoritative and binding; (b)
invalidating the fraudulent and defective Rudiano Certificate; (c) directing respondents, the City
and State Boards of Election to treat the Rudiano Certificate as a nullity; (d) enjoining the
individual respondents from holding themselves out or as, attempting to exercise the powers of
officers of the County Committee, or in any way acting or purporting to act on behalf of the
County Committee; and (e) granting the such other and further relief as to the Court may seem
just, equitable and proper.
Dated:

New York, New York

June 13, 2016
By:

_______________________
EZRA B. GLASER, Esq.
CONDE & GLASER, L.L.P.
Attorneys for the Petitioners
291 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Phone: (212) 385-9300
FAX: (347) 282-2296

25