A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of Michael Novakhov, allowing him to remain a candidate in the upcoming primary election for the Conservative Party's nomination for the New York State Assembly. The decision came after Craig Hammerman challenged the validity of Novakhov's petition, which was necessary for him to appear on the ballot for the 45th Assembly District. This ruling is significant as it confirms Novakhov's place in a crucial political race set for June 23, 2026.
The case, officially titled Matter of Hammerman v. Novakhov (docket number 2026-04581), was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on May 14, 2026. The court's decision came after a hearing that examined the validity of the signatures collected by Novakhov to support his candidacy.
The parties involved in this case are Craig Hammerman, the appellant who sought to invalidate Novakhov's candidacy, and Michael Novakhov, the respondent who aimed to secure his position on the ballot. The dispute arose from the signatures submitted by Novakhov in support of his candidacy. Under New York Election Law § 16-102, candidates must gather a specific number of valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. In this instance, Novakhov needed at least 16 valid signatures.
Initially, the Board of Elections in the City of New York reviewed Novakhov's petition and found that 18 out of the 20 signatures he submitted were valid. Hammerman contested the validity of three of those signatures, prompting the legal challenge. The case was brought before the Supreme Court in Kings County, where Judge Peter P. Sweeney presided over the hearing.
On May 4, 2026, Judge Sweeney issued a final order denying Hammerman's petition to invalidate Novakhov's designating petition and dismissed the case. The court found that Novakhov had indeed submitted 17 valid signatures, exceeding the required number to qualify for the ballot. The appellate court upheld this decision, affirming the lower court's ruling without costs or disbursements.
The court ruled, "Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court correctly validated the signatures..." It further stated that affirmations from two voters confirmed their signatures on the petition, which helped validate Novakhov's candidacy. The court also noted that a third challenged signature was valid based on a comparison with the voter's registration signature.
Judges Angela G. Iannacci, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, William G. Ford, Laurence L. Love, and Donna-Marie E. Golia concurred with the decision, reinforcing the lower court's findings. This ruling not only allows Novakhov to continue his campaign but also sets a precedent regarding the validation of signatures in election-related challenges.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Novakhov's candidacy. It underscores the importance of proper procedures in validating signatures for election petitions. Candidates must ensure their petitions meet the legal requirements to avoid challenges that could jeopardize their positions on the ballot. This case may influence how future election challenges are approached in New York, particularly regarding signature validation.
Looking forward, the ruling can be appealed to a higher court, but it remains to be seen if Hammerman will pursue that option. There are no related cases currently pending that would impact this decision directly. As the primary election date approaches, Novakhov can now focus on his campaign efforts without the cloud of legal challenges hanging over him.