Opinion

Piccolo v. New York City Board of Elections

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
May 9, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 35.3%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

DOC #: _________________

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATE FILED: 5/9/2025

----------------------------------------------------------------- X

:

ARTHUR PICCOLO, :

:

Plaintiff, : 1:25-cv-2617-GHW

:

-v- : ORDER

:

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, :

:

Defendant. :

:

------------------------------------------------------------------ X

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

On April 15, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause why an order should not be

granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ordering Defendant to place Plaintiff on the Democratic

primary ballot for the election for New York City mayor. Dkt. No. 17. The Court held a hearing on

the record on May 8, 2025 regarding the matter. For the reasons discussed on the record during

May 8, 2025 hearing, Plaintiff’s application for preliminary injunctive relief is denied.

As discussed during the May 8, 2025 hearing, Defendant is directed to attain a copy of the

transcript of the hearing and to provide that transcript to Plaintiff. Further, should Plaintiff wish to

continue the litigation, Plaintiff is directed to serve a notice on the New York Attorney General

stating the question of the constitutionality of the New York statutes he is challenging, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a). Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff may file his proposed

notice with the Court, and the Court will direct the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service for

Plaintiff. The proposed notice is due no later than May 15, 2025. As discussed during May 8, 2025

hearing, discovery in this case is stayed pending service of the notice on the New York Attorney

General and an answer or other response to the complaint by Defendant.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order

would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 10, 21.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2025

New York, New York 2 f

GRE H. WOODS

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.