A New York Supreme Court judge has dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility of Andrew D. Hevesi to run in the upcoming Democratic primary election for the 28th Assembly District. The ruling, made by Judge Tracy Catapano-Fox on April 27, 2026, affects Hevesi's candidacy as he seeks to represent the Democratic Party in the primary election scheduled for June 23, 2026. The case highlights the complexities of election law and the importance of proper candidate filings.
The dispute arose when Jonathan David Rinaldi, a candidate himself, filed a petition seeking to invalidate Hevesi's designating petition. Rinaldi argued that Hevesi's filings were inconsistent and invalid, claiming that Hevesi had filed documents that suggested he was not a member of the Democratic Party, which could disqualify him from running as a Democratic candidate. The case, indexed as 711266/2026, was brought before the Queens County Supreme Court.
Rinaldi's petition claimed that Hevesi filed a designating petition on March 30, 2026, along with a certificate of authorization and acceptance that applied to candidates who are not enrolled members of the party they seek to represent. Rinaldi contended that these conflicting filings rendered Hevesi's candidacy invalid. The matter escalated to the court after Hevesi's motion to dismiss Rinaldi's petition was filed, leading to a hearing where both parties presented their arguments.
Judge Catapano-Fox ruled in favor of Hevesi, stating that Rinaldi's petition failed to present a valid cause of action. The court noted that Hevesi had taken steps to address a fraudulent voter registration that had been filed against him, which had incorrectly changed his party affiliation. After the Board of Elections restored Hevesi's registration to reflect his Democratic Party membership, the court found that the subsequent filings were valid.
The court ruled, "Respondent demonstrated prima facie entitlement to dismissal under CPLR §3211(a)(7), as the petition does not state a valid cause of action."
In the ruling, the judge emphasized that the Board of Elections had confirmed that Hevesi's designating petitions were properly accepted after the fraudulent registration was vacated. The court also noted that the filing of the certificate of authorization was not indicative of Hevesi's party affiliation but rather a precautionary measure taken in light of the fraudulent activity. The judge stated, "Petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid cause of action exists under controlling statutory or case law, and fails to rebut respondent's evidence that the will of the Democratic Party District Leaders was effectuated when filing the certificate of authorization to address the unique circumstances of respondent's party status."
This ruling has significant implications for the upcoming primary election. It confirms Hevesi's eligibility to run as a Democratic candidate, allowing him to remain on the ballot for the June 23 election. The decision also sets a precedent regarding how courts may interpret conflicting filings by candidates and the authority of the Board of Elections in resolving such disputes.
The outcome of this case affects not only Hevesi and Rinaldi but also the voters in the 28th Assembly District, who will have the opportunity to choose their representative in the primary election. The court's ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that candidates adhere to the legal requirements for candidacy.
Looking ahead, Rinaldi has the option to appeal the court's decision. However, the ruling provides a strong basis for Hevesi's candidacy, making it challenging for Rinaldi to overturn the dismissal. There are no related cases pending that could impact this decision, but the case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in election law and the necessity for candidates to ensure their filings are accurate and compliant with the law.