Appeal of JAMES CRAWFORD from action of the Board of Education of the Wyandanch Union Free School District regarding an election.

Decision No. 18,653

(November 4, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Mara M. Harvey, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals purported actions of the Board of Education of the Wyandanch Union Free School District (“respondent”) regarding the district’s May 2025 school board election.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner and Brenda Moore were candidates for an open seat on respondent’s board in the May 20, 2025 election.  Respondent certified Ms. Moore as the winner after determining that she received 160 votes while petitioner received 153.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner asserts that respondent improperly excluded a “significant number” of affidavit ballots.  Petitioner further contends that the voting machine records contain inconsistencies, that an electronic voting machine did not work for a time, and that Ms. Moore was prematurely announced as the winner.   Petitioner also argues that Ms. Moore does not satisfy the residency requirements applicable to board candidates, complains that he and others could not witness the opening of the ballot box and canvassing of votes, and speculates that the “co-chief [election] inspector” has a “close personal or familial connection” to Ms. Moore.  Petitioner seeks relief including invalidation of the election results and a new election.

Respondent contends that petitioner failed to establish that the alleged irregularities occurred during the school district election, let alone the demanding standard required to overturn the results of an election.

First, I must address a procedural matter.  To the extent petitioner suggested that he has been denied access to records under the Freedom of Information law (FOIL), Section 89 of the Public Officers Law vests exclusive jurisdiction over alleged FOIL violations in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (Appeal of H.A., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,215; Appeal of Olka, 48 id. 10, Decision No. 15,776; Application of Gentile, 47 id. 438, Decision No. 15,747).  Therefore, such allegations may not be adjudicated in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310, and I have no jurisdiction to address the FOIL allegations raised in this appeal.

Turning to the merits, to invalidate the results of a school district election, the petitioner must either:  (1) establish not only that irregularities occurred but also that any irregularities actually affected the outcome of the election or were so pervasive that they vitiated the electoral process; or (2) demonstrate a clear and convincing picture of informality to the point of laxity in adherence to the Education Law (see Matter of Boyes v Allen, 32 AD2d 990, 991 [3d Dept 1969], affd 26 NY2d 709 [1970]; Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeal of Levine, 24 id. 172, Decision No. 11,356, affd sub nom. Capobianco v Ambach, 112 AD2d 640 [3d Dept 1985]).  Implicit in these decisions is a recognition that it is a rare case where errors in the conduct of an election are so pervasive as to vitiate the fundamental fairness of the election (see Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeal of Lanzilotta, 48 id. 428, Decision No. 15,905; Appeal of Thomas, 47 id. 442, Decision No. 15,748).

In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).

Petitioner has not met the requisite standard.  Petitioner’s principal allegation is that certain absentee ballots were improperly discarded.  As proof, he submits two signed, notarized statements alleging that absentee ballots were discarded during the May 20, 2025 election.  The first is from a poll inspector, who indicates that “absentee ballots were thrown away before the count was over.”  The second individual states that she “witnessed several ballots with envelopes being thrown out in the trash bin by a poll inspector.”  The district clerk denies these contentions in an affidavit, explaining that the district received 58 absentee ballots but only opened and accepted 51 of them.  Of the seven ballots that were not counted, five were unsigned and two were illegible.[1]  Petitioner did not submit a reply or otherwise refute the district clerk’s explanation.  Accordingly, he has not met his burden of proof.

Petitioner also submits written statements indicating that, due to a malfunction with an electronic voting machine, voters were asked to vote by affidavit.  These statements do not, as petitioner suggests, prove that “a significant number of affidavit ballots … were improperly excluded from the count.”  While one of the writers indicates that “some [voters] just left” instead of completing an affidavit ballot, petitioner has not explained why such decisions should be attributable to respondent.[2]

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.  Respondent’s incorrect identification of a voting machine (i.e., E442 instead of E443) appears to have been a typographical error unrelated to administration of the election.  Additionally, petitioner has submitted no evidence that Ms. Moore does not reside within the district or that she is related to an election inspector—claims, in any event, that respondent denies.

I have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE