23-05-2025
Judge rejects reconsideration of Olney's ballot challenge
May 23—WATERTOWN — A state Supreme Court judge has declined to hear a motion brought by City Councilman Clifford G. Olney III asking the judge to reconsider an earlier ruling that keeps Olney off the ballot for the upcoming City Council race.
Judge James P. McClusky had ruled Tuesday that a suit brought by Olney against the Jefferson County Board of Elections be dismissed because notice of the action had not been served on the county and a second defendant, Jeanne Barker, in a timely manner.
Olney was challenging a determination made by the board that he lacked the necessary number of valid signatures on his candidate petitions to be included on the ballot.
While McClusky's ruling did give validation to enough signatures on the petitions to restore Olney to the ballot, the issue was rendered moot when McClusky further ruled that the defendants were not given sufficient timely notice of the action, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.
Barker, a city resident, was named in the action because she was the one who filed a challenge to Olney's petitions with the Board of Elections.
Following McClusky's ruling, Olney almost immediately filed a motion with the court asking that the matter be reconsidered or that he have an opportunity to reargue the case. He made the argument, among other things, that his notice upon the defendants had been served in accordance with a timeline set by the court, which he had met.
In his subsequent ruling, McClusky said that Olney, who represented himself in the action, did not abide by state Civil Practice Laws and Rules when filing his motion for reconsideration.
The judge wrote that, under CPLR, it is Olney's obligation to prepare and serve the defendants with the motion and advise them of a return date for court. McClusky said Olney's motion included no return date or time for argument.
The judge also wrote that Olney had provided the court with an affidavit indicating he had personally served the notices. Under CPLR, a party to an action may not serve papers, making Olney's service "ineffective," according to McClusky's ruling.
The judge also took issue with six legal cases cited by Olney in his motion that Olney contended supported his claims under Election Law.
"None of those cases exist," McClusky wrote. "The citations provided have reference to other cases with no connection to the matters at issue in this case."
"The Court is not sure how Petitioner conducted his legal research, but he clearly did not check to ensure that his citations were correct," the judge wrote. "If an attorney had submitted these same papers, the Court would conduct a hearing and, if appropriate, sanction that attorney."
Recognizing that Olney was acting as his own attorney, the judge cautioned Olney that he is still held to the same standards as an attorney, "and if further legal papers are submitted with the same type of mistakes, such a hearing will be held."
Again recognizing that Olney is representing himself, the judge said he was rejecting his motion "without prejudice," leaving the door open for Olney to refile it.
READ FULL DECISION BELOW
