Legal Document: Mona Montal, Eluzer Gold, Moshe Frieder v. Ramapo Republican Committee Officers, Rockland County Board Of Elections, Michael A Koplen

On August 07, 2023 a MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT (Motion #003) - Intervenor's Reply Memo of Law in Support of Intervenor's Petition was filed involving a dispute between Eluzer Gold, Mona Montal, Moshe Frieder, and Linda France, Marino F. Fontana, Michael A Koplen, Ramapo Republican Committee Officers, Rockland County Board Of Elections, The Rockland County Board Of Elections, for Special Proceedings - Election Law in the District Court of Rockland County.

Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

In the Matter of the Application of

MONA MONTAL, as Chair of the Ramapo Index No. 033825/2023
Democratic County Committee, ELUZER GOLD and
MOSHE FRIEDER,
Petitioners,

-and-

THE TOWN OF RAMAPO,

Intervenor-Petitioner

– against –

MICHAEL A. KOPLEN, MARINO F. FONTANA and
LINDA FRANCE, as Presiding Officers of the Ramapo
Republican Committee, and
Respondents,

THE ROCKLAND COUNTY Board of Elections,
Respondents,

For an Order Pursuant to Section 16-100, 16-102 and
16-116 of the Election Law, declaring invalid the
Certificate of Nomination purporting to nominate
Respondent-Candidate for the Public Office of Town
Justice in the general election to be held on November
7, 2023 and Restraining the Board of Elections from
Printing and Placing the Name of Said Candidate
Upon the Official Ballots of Such General Election.

INTERVENOR’S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF INTERVENOR’S PETITION

ABRAMS FENSTERMAN, LLP
Attorneys for Intervenor Town of Ramapo
81 Main Street, Suite 400
White Plains, New York 10601
Telephone: 914-607-7010

1 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Argument ................................................................................................................... 1
Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 3
A. The Town is a proper party to this action and has standing. ...................................... 3
B. The original petition was timely filed. ....................................................................... 4
C. The Town’s failure to join the political committee that purported to give Koplen the
nomination does not require dismissal. ...................................................................... 6
D. The Town had the power to abolish a Town Justice position. ................................... 7
E. The Town Clerk did not certify that there was a vacancy to be filled at the
November 2023 General Election. ............................................................................. 8
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 10

2 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE(S)

Cases
Anson v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport
193 A.D.3d 799 (2d Dep’t 2021) ................................................................................................ 5
Chiocchi v. Town of Montgomery
120 A.D.2d 479 (2d Dep’t 1986) ................................................................................................ 6
Diamond v. Power
21 A.D.2d 660 (1st Dep’t 1964) ................................................................................................. 5
LaLota v. New York State Bd. of Elections
183 A.D.3d 785 (2d Dep’t 2020) ................................................................................................ 6
Matter of Engel v. Bd of Elections of State
144 A.D.2d 175 (3d Dep’t 1988) .......................................................................................... 9, 10
Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore
52 N.Y.2d 88 (1981) ................................................................................................................... 9
Matter of Lewis v. State Univ. of New York Downstate Med. Ctr.
35 A.D.3d 862 (2d Dep’t 2006) .................................................................................................. 5
Matter of Reo v. Vill. of Lawrence
105 A.D.3d 855 (2d Dep’t 2013) ................................................................................................ 5
Miller v. Kozakiewicz
300 A.D.2d 399 (2d Dep’t 2002) ................................................................................................ 6
Moser v. Tawil
135 A.D.3d 942 (2d Dep’t 2016) ............................................................................................ 7, 8
New York State Committee of Independence v. New York State Bd. of Elections
87 A.D.3d 806 (3d Dep’t 2011) .................................................................................................. 7
People v. Dominique
90 N.Y.2d 880 (1997) ................................................................................................................. 8
Pizzardi v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist. No.
1, 90 A.D.2d 540 (2d Dep’t 1982) .............................................................................................. 5
Save The View Now v. Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp.
156 A.D.3d 928 (2d Dep’t 2017) ................................................................................................ 5
Snell v. Young
88 A.D.3d 1149 (3d Dep’t 2011) ................................................................................................ 7
Vill. of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo
94 A.D.3d 1103 (2d Dep’t 2012) ................................................................................................ 4
Rules
CPLR 213(1) ................................................................................................................................... 5

3 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

CPLR 3001...................................................................................................................................... 5
CPLR 7801, 7803............................................................................................................................ 9

iii

4 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Intervenor-Petitioner the Town of Ramapo (the “Town”) respectfully submits this

memorandum of law in reply to the oppositions submitted by Respondents Michael A. Koplen

(“Koplen”) and the Rockland County Board of Elections (the “Board of Elections”) on August 30,

2023, and in further support of its motion for a preliminary injunction and petition.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This proceeding concerns Koplen’s attempts to seek election to an office which no longer

exists. Upon the consent of all parties on the record in open court on August 11, 2023, the Town

filed an Intervenor’s Petition on August 23, 2023, seeking (i) a determination that the certificate

of nomination filed July 27, 2023 purporting to nominate respondent Koplen as the candidate of

the Republican Party for the public office of the Town Justice of the Town of Ramapo in the

November 7, 2023 general election is null and void because the office has been abolished; and (ii)

an injunction prohibiting respondent Board of Elections from placing Koplen’s name on the ballot

for that election for the same reason. Both respondents oppose the Town’s petition on various

grounds. 1 None of their objections have merit.

The Town has standing to intervene in this proceeding because the Town has very

substantial interests, monetary and otherwise, at stake in this proceeding. The Town Board decided

that it would benefit the Town’s taxpayers to abolish one of the three Town Justice offices. It has

intervened in this proceeding to effect that determination and protect that public interest.

1
Although Koplen styles his opposition as a motion to dismiss the Town’s Intervenor Petition,
he has not made any formal motion to do so and no such affirmative relief may be granted to
Koplen. His only formal motion to dismiss was directed to the Verified Petition of petitioners
Mona Montal, Eluzer Gold, and Moshe Frieder. That motion, which was filed prior to the Town’s
filing of its Intervenor Petition, is inapplicable to the Town’s pleading.

5 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

Neither respondent can contest the timeliness of this action or the need to join other parties.

Having consented to the Town’s intervention, the respondents cannot seek to prevent that

intervention now. The Town’s petition does not contest the validity of the Koplen’s certificate of

nomination, per se. It merely argues that there is no election for Town Justice for which Koplen

could have been nominated. Since the Town is not arguing that the form of the certificate of

nomination is defective or that the procedure by which it was authorized does not satisfy the

statutory requirements, it should not be bound by the short statute of limitations applicable to an

Election Law proceeding and there is no reason why any parties other than the candidate need to

be joined to determine whether the office of Town Justice has been abolished.

As the public body which created the office of Town Justice, the Town Board has the power

to abolish that office. It does not matter whether the seat occupied by Justice Fried was the precise

seat that was created in 2020. All three seats are identical except for the dates that the terms begin

and expire. There is no dispute that if Justice Fried had not resigned, there would not be an election

for Town Justice in Ramapo this year. There is also no dispute that the Town Board adopted a

resolution abolishing the third Town Justice office, leaving the Town with only two Town Justice

offices, both of which are filled. The only rational conclusion that can be reached on these

undisputed facts, therefore, is that the certificate purporting to nominate Koplen for an office that

does not exist is null and void.

Finally, the Board of Elections insists that the Town Clerk certified to it that there was a

vacancy in the office of Town Justice to be filled at the November general election. That is false.

The email on which the Board of Elections bases that claim merely advised the Board of Elections

that the Town Board had accepted Justice Fried’s resignation. It said nothing about filing the office

of Town Justice. And when the Town Board abolished that office a month later, before the

6 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

certificate of nomination was filed, the Town Clerk advised the Board of Elections of that fact,

again saying nothing that could rationally be construed as certifying that the office of Town Justice

was to be filled at the November general election. The Town Clerk never certified that there is a

position to be filled. The Board of Elections, therefore, has no authority to hold an election for an

office that does not exist.

ARGUMENT

A. The Town is a proper party to this action and has standing.

Koplen argues that the Town lacks standing because claims under Election Law § 16-

102(1) may be commenced only by an aggrieved candidate, a party chairperson, or a person who

has filed objections. See Michael A. Koplen Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Town’s Petition (“Koplen Opp.”) at 3-4. This is puzzling considering all parties, including Koplen,

consented to the Town’s intervention in open court on August 11, 2023. See NYSCEF Doc. No.14

at 4. 2 This argument should not even be entertained when the Court has already ordered, without

objection, that the Town file intervention papers.

In any event, Koplen’s position is without merit. Town boards are empowered by statute

to institute legal proceedings to enforce local laws or ordinances. See Town Law § 268. A

municipality also has standing to seek redress in courts when actions of another governmental

2
After this appearance, the parties executed a stipulation consenting to the Town’s
intervention, which was so-ordered by the Court on August 22, 2023, in which Koplen purported
to reserve his right to raise substantive issues concerning, among other things, the Town’s
intervention “after the Statute of Limitations has expired, and the claims, if any, raised by the
Town of Ramapo may not be adjudicated in an Election Law Proceeding.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 23
at 2, note ***. Because Koplen had already consented on the record to the Town’s intervention,
the stipulation was of no moment and his attempt to reserve rights in the stipulation is meaningless.

7 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

entity threaten its interests. See Vill. of Pomona v. Town of Ramapo, 94 A.D.3d 1103, 1107-08 (2d

Dep’t 2012) (municipality had standing to challenge neighboring municipality’s rezoning).

As detailed at length in the Town’s moving brief, this case threatens the Town with unique,

irreparable harm which is more than sufficient to confer standing. If the Board of Elections certifies

Koplen’s name as a candidate for the upcoming general election, Koplen will be running for an

office that does not exist and the Town will be placed in the untenable position of having a justice

whose every official action can be challenged as invalid while he is presumably claiming that the

Town is required to pay his salary. Koplen does not contest this. To say that the Town has no stake

in the outcome of this litigation is thus simply not true.

B. The original petition was timely filed.

Both respondents contend that the Town’s petition is untimely. This is because, they argue,

the applicable statute of limitations is set forth by the Election Law, which requires a proceeding

to challenge a nomination for public office to be commenced within ten days of service of the

certificate of nomination or designating petition on all necessary parties. This action was initially

commenced by petitioners Mona Montal, Eluzer Gold, and Moshe Frieder on August 7, 2023.

Their petition already alleged that “the Ramapo Town Board abolished the seat of Town Justice

that was made vacant by the resignation of David Fried and therefore there is no vacancy to fill at

the November 7, 2023 General Election.” See Verified Petition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1) at ¶ 9. They

also specifically “request[ed] leave and reserve[d] the right to submit upon the argument and

hearing of this application, evidence by the way of affidavits, testimony, and documentary proof

to substantiate and support this application.” Id at ¶ 11. The Board of Elections concedes in its

opposition that the original petition was timely filed on August 7. See Attorney Affirmation of

David H. Chen dated August 30, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45) at § 6. Service of that pleading is

the subject of the traverse hearing scheduled for September 7, 2023. In election law matters, absent

8 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

a jurisdictional defect, “other omissions and irregularities should be curable by amendment, where,

as here, no prejudice resulted to the opposing party.” Matter of Diamond v. Power, 21 A.D.2d 660,

660 (1st Dep’t 1964), lv. dismissed 14 N.Y.2d 484 (1964).

These proceedings were initiated under the Election Law because of the petitioners’

allegations that Koplen’s certificate of nomination is invalid. The Town’s allegations, however,

have nothing to do with Koplen’s qualifications for office. 3 Rather, the Town seeks relief pursuant

to CPLR article 78 or a declaratory judgment under CPLR 3001 that its resolution abolishing the

office of Town Justice is valid. Either way, the action is timely. The time to commence a special

proceeding under Article 78 is four months. See Matter of Reo v. Vill. of Lawrence, 105 A.D.3d

855, 856 (2d Dep’t 2013); Matter of Lewis v. State Univ. of New York Downstate Med. Ctr., 35

A.D.3d 862, 863 (2d Dep’t 2006); Pizzardi v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 90 A.D.2d 540,

540 (2d Dep’t 1982). An action for a declaratory judgment must be commenced within six years.

See CPLR 213(1); Statharos v. Statharos, __ A.D.3d __, 2023 WL 5064458, at *3 (2d Dep’t 2023);

Save The View Now v. Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp., 156 A.D.3d 928, 931 (2d Dep’t 2017) (“An

action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year statute of limitations.”). “An

action for declaratory relief accrues when there is a bona fide, justiciable controversy between the

parties.” Anson v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport, 193 A.D.3d 799, 801 (2d Dep’t 2021). The earliest time

the Town’s cause of action could have accrued here would have been July 24, 2023—the date on

which the Town Board adopted the resolution abolishing the office of Town Justice. The Town’s

petition filed roughly 30 days later is, therefore, timely.

3
The Town has commenced a separate action (Index No. 034110/2023) seeking
declaratory relief in the event this Court finds that this entire action must be dismissed based on
the statute of limitations for an action to invalidate a certificate of nomination.

9 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

The statute of limitations issue arises only because the filing of the invalid certificate

purporting to nominate Koplen makes it necessary for the Town to defend the validity of its

resolution. The onus should have been on Koplen, as an individual asserting that the resolution is

invalid, to challenge that action through an article 78 proceeding. See Matter of Miller v.

Kozakiewicz, 300 A.D.2d 399, 399-400 (2d Dep’t 2002) (article 78 seeking review of two town

board resolutions was properly dismissed); Chiocchi v. Town of Montgomery, 120 A.D.2d 479,

480 (2d Dep’t 1986) (plaintiffs’ complaint, to the extent it was a challenge to the validity of a town

board resolution, was untimely as they had not sought a permissive referendum or filed an article

78). Having filed an invalid certificate of nomination for an office that does not exist, Koplen now

tries to shift the burden, in effect, to the Town by hiding behind the statute of limitations in an

attempt to prevent the Court from reaching the merits. The Court should not allow him to do so.

At the very least, the Town should have the benefit of the same limitations period that Koplen

would have been entitled to in an action seeking to invalidate the Town Board’s resolution.

Applying that standard, the Town’s petition is unquestionably timely.

C. The Town’s failure to join the political committee that purported to give Koplen the
nomination does not require dismissal.

Koplen next argues that the Town’s petition must be dismissed because the Town did not

name the Ramapo Republican Executive Committee as a party. He cites no authority for this

position. Unlike the original Verified Petition, the Town’s Intervenor Petition takes no position on

the validity of the internal procedures of the Ramapo Republican Party. There is no discernable

reason why the Town’s contentions concerning their resolution abolishing the office of Town

Justice would require joinder of any other parties. No other parties “might be inequitably affected

by a judgment” based on the Town’s contentions. LaLota v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 183

A.D.3d 785, 787 (2d Dep’t 2020), lv. dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 904 (2020) (internal quotation marks

10 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

omitted). Regardless, dismissal would not be required here because the interests of the Ramapo

Republican Executive Committee are adequately represented through the participation of

respondents Fontana and France. See Matter of Snell v. Young, 88 A.D.3d 1149, 1150 (3d Dep’t

2011), lv. dismissed 17 N.Y.3d 715 (2011) (“Inasmuch as the petition herein also individually

names as respondents the permanent chair and permanent secretary of the judicial nominating

convention, we find that the interests of the Executive Committee are ‘adequately represented,’”

quoting Matter of New York State Committee of Independence v. New York State Bd. of Elections,

87 A.D.3d 806, 811 (3d Dep’t 2011), lv. dismissed 17 N.Y.3d 706 [2011]).

D. The Town had the power to abolish a Town Justice position.

Playing a game of musical chairs, Koplen claims that, because the particular seat that

Justice Fried occupied was not the same seat that the Town created via resolution in 2020, the

Town could not abolish the office left vacant when Justice Fried resigned. This is a distinction

without a difference. Koplen, again, cites no authority that makes a distinction between the

supposed “statutory seats” and the third seat, which the Town created. As the record of Ramapo

Town Justices which Koplen submitted with his opposition confirms (NYSCEF Doc. No. 44),

none of the three seats were up for election this coming year. Seniority among the justices of

Ramapo, as with any court, would be determined by years on the bench, not on the former occupant

of their seat.

Attempting to distinguish Moser v. Tawil, 135 A.D.3d 942 (2d Dep’t 2016), Koplen ignores

that there is, in fact, positive law which supports the Town’s authority to abolish the third Town

Justice position without permissive referendum. As discussed in the Town’s moving brief, the

Town’s 2023 resolution was, in effect, a repeal of its 2020 resolution which created the office.

Town Law § 93 expressly provides that “[a]ny act or resolution of a town board may be rescinded

or repealed at any time by the town board.” (emphasis added). “[I]n case the resolution so repealed

11 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

be one subject to a permissive referendum and a petition thereupon be filed, no further proceedings

shall be had thereunder and no referendum shall be held.” Id.

Koplen, correctly, states that public officers are entitled to a presumption that they properly

carry out their official duties. See Koplen Opp. at 6; see also People v. Dominique, 90 N.Y.2d 880,

881 (1997) (“the law further presumes that no official or person acting under an oath of office will

do anything contrary to his official duty or omit anything which his official duty requires to be

done”). His conclusion, however, that this presumption supports his contention that the Town

Board’s resolution abolishing the seat of Town Justice was subject to permissive referendum is

contradictory. He apparently believes that the Town Board’s 2020 resolution which created the

office, and was made subject to permissive referendum, should be entitled to the presumption

while its 2023 resolution abolishing that office should not. But the fact that the Town opted to

make the 2020 resolution subject to a permissive referendum does not establish that doing so was

required. A Town Board may voluntarily choose to submit a resolution for approval by the

electors. See Town Law § 94 (“The town board, upon its own motion, may cause to be submitted

for the approval of the electors any act or resolution of such board against which a petition could

be filed as provided in this chapter”). All of the Town Board’s resolutions must be presumed valid,

not only the one which supports Koplen’s position.

E. The Town Clerk did not certify that there was a vacancy to be filled at the
November 2023 General Election.

Lastly, both Koplen and the Board of Elections claim that the Town Clerk certified that a

vacancy existed for Town Justice. To make that claim, they must misread the two emails the Town

Clerk’s office sent to the Board of Elections. The first email, sent by Sandy Howells, Principal

Registry Clerk, on July 28, 2023, which attached the Town Board’s acceptance of Justice Fried’s

resignation, simply states: “Please see attached Resolution 2023‐296 Acceptance of Resignation:

12 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

Town Justice.” See Intervenor’s Petition Exhibit G (NYSCEF Doc. No. 34). It says nothing about

the position being filled at the November general election. Contrary to the assertion of the Board

of Elections’ counsel that this email had to be interpreted as a certification that there was an office

to be filled, see Attorney Affirmation of David H. Chen dated August 30, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc.

No. 45) at ¶ 8, Ms. Howells’ email says no such thing. She merely stated, accurately, that Justice

Fried’s resignation had been effective as of June 23, 2023. Neither her email, nor the resolution

she attached, See Intervenor’s Petition Exhibit E (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32), say anything about how

the Town planned to address the vacancy.

The July 31, 2023 from the Town Clerk similarly says nothing about fulfilling the position.

See Intervenor’s Petition Exhibit I (NYSCEF Doc. No. 36). Election Law § 4-106(4) requires “a

certificate indicating the occurrence of the vacancy and the position which is to be filled.” Advising

the Board of Elections by email that Justice Fried had resigned did not certify that there was a

position to be filled, particularly where the second email was accompanied by a copy of the

resolution abolishing the position. Since no certificate of vacancy was filed, the Board of Elections

has no authority to put the position on the ballot. See Matter of Engel v. Bd of Elections of State,

144 A.D.2d 175 (3d Dep’t 1988), lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 810 (1988).

Despite Koplen’s apparent fears that New York would fall into anarchy, it is neither radical

nor controversial to say that a certificate of vacancy must be submitted before there can be an

election. In fact, it is required by law. See Election Law § 4-106(4). This is a ministerial duty of

the Town Clerk which, if not done, may be compelled through an article 78 proceeding. See CPLR

7801, 7803; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88, 96 (1981)

(action for mandamus to compel performance of a duty enjoined by law may be available through

article 78). A certificate of vacancy is necessary to put potential candidates on notice that there is

13 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

an office up for election. No other candidates entered the race because, evidently, they reasonably

believed that there was no vacancy as no certificate was submitted. In the absence of such a

certificate of vacancy, Koplen cannot sneak onto the ballot through the backdoor. See Engel, 144

A.D.2d at 176 (“the filing of a certificate indicating the occurrence of the vacancy and the position

which is to be filled is a condition precedent to the filling of the vacancy at the next general

election”). Again, if he felt the Town Board’s resolution was invalid, Koplen should have filed an

action to compel the Town Clerk to certify the vacancy.

CONCLUSION

For all of these reasons, the Town respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief

requested in its petition.

ABRAMS FENSTERMAN, LLP
Attorneys for Intervenor Town of Ramapo

By:
Robert A. Spolzino
81 Main Street, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 607-7010

Dated: White Plains, New York
September 6, 2023

14 of 15
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 09/06/2023 01:11 PM INDEX NO. 033825/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/06/2023

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM RULE 202.8-B

I, Robert Spolzino, an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of New York, certify that
this document contains 3,438 words, as calculated by the Microsoft Word processing system,
inclusive of point headings and footnotes, and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents,
table of citations, proof of service, certificate of compliance, or any authorized addendum
containing statutes, rules and regulations, etc.

__________________________
Robert Spolzino

15 of 15

Case Info

Judge

Thomas P Zugibe Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 06, 2023

Case Filing Date

August 07, 2023

County

Parties

ABRAMS, FENSTERMAN Attorney
CHEN, DAVID HENRY Attorney for the Defendant
Eluzer Gold Plaintiff
FLORIO, LISA COLOSI Attorney
KOPLEN, MICHAEL A. Attorney for the Defendant
Linda France Defendant
Marino F. Fontana Defendant
Michael A Koplen Defendant
Mona Montal Plaintiff
Moshe Frieder Plaintiff
RAMAPO REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE OFFICERS Defendant
ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Defendant
SPOLZINO, ROBERT A Attorney
SZALKIEWICZ, DANIEL S Attorney for the Plaintiff
THE ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS Defendant
THE TOWN OF RAMAPO Non Party

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Mona Montal, Eluzer Gold, Moshe Frieder v. Ramapo Republican Committee Officers, Rockland County Board Of Elections, Michael A Koplen

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties