Gallagher v. New York State Board of Elections
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-05504
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gallagher v. New York State Board of Elections, Judge Torres denied plaintiffs’ motion seeking enforcement and contempt related to an election injunction.
The plaintiffs’ request for enforcement and contempt relief was denied. The requested relief concerned Peter Kosinski, the State Board of Elections, and the City Board of Elections, but the order does not impose relief on any of them.
What happened
In Gallagher v. New York State Board of Elections, the plaintiffs asked the court to address alleged failures to implement an earlier order requiring election-related action, including counting certain ballots.
The plaintiffs argued that the City Board had certified election results without counting the ballots and that the State Board had not directed local boards to comply. They asked the court to order Peter Kosinski to attend a State Board meeting and to consider contempt or other consequences.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the motion. The text does not provide reasons for the denial or state whether the court found that any party violated the earlier injunction.
The detailed version
- Gallagher v. New York State Board of Elections · No. 1:20-cv-05504
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
The document is a plaintiffs’ letter-motion seeking enforcement of an earlier injunction and contempt relief. The letter states that the court had previously granted the plaintiffs’ and plaintiff-intervenors’ requests for injunctive relief concerning election results and ballots. The earlier order is not included in this document.
The plaintiffs asserted that the City Board certified election results without counting the ballots covered by the earlier order. They also asserted that the State Board had not issued directions to local election boards to count the ballots. According to the letter, Peter Kosinski, sued in his official capacity as the current Republican co-chair of the State Board of Elections, had said he would not attend State Board meetings until a second Republican Commissioner was appointed to fill a vacant seat.
Requested Relief
The plaintiffs asked the court to order Kosinski to attend a limited-purpose meeting to help implement the earlier order. They also asked the court to consider holding Kosinski, another appropriate defendant, or the City Board in contempt, setting a compliance schedule, and identifying consequences for continued noncompliance. The letter argued that the court had authority to issue additional orders to enforce its injunction and had broad discretion to fashion a remedy.
These assertions and requests appear in the plaintiffs’ filing. The document does not contain a response from the defendants or a separate explanation by the court addressing the factual disputes.
Ruling
At the end of the filing, Judge Analisa Torres entered the order: “DENIED. SO ORDERED.” The court therefore denied the motion to enforce and for contempt. The text does not say that the court held anyone in contempt, ordered Kosinski to attend a meeting, ruled on whether the election boards violated the earlier order, or explained the basis for denying the motion. This was an ancillary enforcement ruling rather than a decision on the underlying election claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.