Rockland GOP chairman appeals ruling on plan to pull ballot spot switcheroo
NEW CITY − The Rockland Republican Party chairman is appealing a state judge's ruling that prohibits him and Clarkstown Justice Scott Ugell from getting a ballot spot for town supervisor.
Lawrence Garvey, an attorney, filed a notice to appeal Supreme Court Justice Paul Marx's finding that Garvey, an attorney, and Ugell committed fraud and deception by attempting to place Ugell on the ballot for supervisor.
Marx noted Ugell couldn't legally or ethically run for a non-judicial office unless he first resigned as a judge. Marx found that the plan included Garvey replacing Ugell on the ballot.
No ballot spot: Judge rules Hoehmann's name can't be on the June primary ballot for supervisor
What led to Justice Marx's decision?
Ugell, well known to Clarkstown voters after nine elections and more than three decades on the bench, eventually declined the ballot spot after supporters, including his wife, filed petitions with the Rockland Board of Elections. Ugell is paid $93,063 as a judge this year. The supervisor is paid $179,375. Garvey, the GOP chair for a decade, was paid $81,488 in 2022 as a deputy attorney for Rockland Green, the former county solid waste management agency.
The judge found the scheme played on Ugell's name recognition to secure a Republican candidate for supervisor since multiterm incumbent George Hoehmann is term-limited, a status upheld twice by a Supreme Court judge, pending a ruling by the Appellate Division.
Marx used the Judy Garland fantasy "Wizard of Oz" to partially describe the plan.
"Garvey and Ugell urge the Court to tum a blind eye to Ugell's Wizard of Oz candidacy, one where Party committee members were instructed by Garvey not to talk to the man behind the curtain Ugell," Marx wrote. "Garvey would have this Court believe that he was unaware that Ugell did not intend to serve as the candidate until the eve of the deadline for filing designating petitions."
Marx's decision became one of several court rulings on Friday that, pending appeals, narrowed the field of Clarkstown supervisor candidates to Town Clerk Justin Sweet, a Democrat.
Justice Amy Puerto had ordered the Board of Election not to add Supervisor George Hoehmann's name to the ballot. Puerto has upheld Clarkstown's 2014 term limits law making Hoehmann ineligible to run for supervisor in 2023. He's appealing, and the case is before the Appellate Divison on May 10.
Justice David Zuckerman found no evidence to support the Garvey-led Republican claims of fraud involving ballot petitions for Clarkstown Democratic candidates for town and county office.
Garvey declined to comment on his notice of appeal or Marx's decision. Ugell, who won another four-year term in 2021, said an appeal has been filed and declined further comment.
Sweet and Emily King, the petitioners, filed the legal challenge to remove Garvey and Ugell through their attorney Daniel Szalkiewicz. The Manhattan-based attorney argued, among other issues, that Garvey and Ugell committed election fraud and that deficiencies in Ugell's designating petition would have disqualified him. The Board of Elections didn't finish reviewing the petitions when Marx ruled.
Garvey's appeal doesn't mention Ugell. The appeal description to the Appellate Division states concerns of "whether the Supreme Court erred in granting judgment in favor of petitioners, granting petitioners relief sought and removing respondent Lawrence A Garvey from the ballot."
Garvey and Ugell give opposing views to the judge
In letters to Marx, Garvey and Ugell seemed to break solidarity. Both wrote the judge as he weighed the evidence in the case.
Letter: Garvey tells judge Ugell knew about petitions, defends Ugell
Letter: Ugell says Garvery gave him bad legal advice
Despite Ugell contending he was caught unaware by the petition drive to make him the supervisor candidate, Garvey wrote that Ugell's testimony that he never intended to run for supervisor "is not credible."
Garvey wrote the judge that "Ugell did intend to run for Supervisor, and Petitioner Sweet is aware of this because Respondent Ugell told him, and other people, at the Clarkstown Police Auxilliary dinner on March 31, 2023, that he was planning to run for Supervisor and he expected to win."
Garvey also wrote Marx urging the dismissal of the Sweet-Klein action. He argued Ugell didn't violate any ethical rules and was eligible to be elected supervisor. Garvey said the Democrats changed their legal strategy at the 11th hour to claim fraud. The Conservative Party nominated stakeholders with the intention of declining the ballot line, he further wrote, and then having Sweet named to the Conservative line.
Garvey's letter also outlines that Ugell had contacted a lawyer with expertise in election law to determine if he could run as a sitting judge. Garvey told the judge Ugell's wife collected signatures with Ugell being the sole name on the petition.
Ugell responded to Garvey's comments by writing Marx: "I am deeply disturbed by the comments of Lawrence Garvey as it relates to my testimony.
"Mr. Garvey is inappropriately conflicted in this matter as he provided legal advice to me up to the time of the hearing and was the person who advised me of the court schedule," Ugell said.
"Mr. Garvey and I spoke to election lawyer John Ciampoli together," Ugell wrote Marx. "He (Ciampoli) advised us that I would not be a candidate until the petitions were filed with a sufficient number of signatures. He advised that until that time I would merely be testing the waters for a possible run. And once that occurred I would decide whether to run for Supervisor and file either an acceptance or a declination."
Democrats lawyer: The Republicans committed fraud
Szalkiewicz, representing Sweet and Klein, wrote Marx and espoused legal reasons why Ugell's petition should be voided and Garvey barred from taking a ballot spot. He argued Ugell gave contradictory testimony and he never intended to run for supervisor and knew about the petition drive to nevertheless put his name on the ballot.
"Petitioners have witnesses who will testify they made (Ugell) aware that petitions were being circulated in his name," he said. "A presumption can be found that the reason the Respondent immediately (within hours) of the petition being filed with the Board of Elections declined the nomination was because he never had a true intent of running. This would constitute a fraud on the electorate."
Marx held a hearing on the credibility of both sides to resolve the inconsistency between Ugell's disavowal of any candidacy or intention to be a candidate and Garvey's assertion that Ugell knew that petitions were being circulated for him.
Marx wrote that Ugell is required to "personally observe [high standards of conduct] so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved."
"The evidence is compelling that Ugell and Garvey intentionally sought to skirt the ethical issues faced by Ugell's candidacy with deception, subterfuge, willful blindness and half-truths," Marx wrote in a 21-page decision prohibiting the Rockland Board of Elections from adding Ugell and Garvey from appearing on the ballot.
Steve Lieberman covers government, breaking news, courts, police, and investigations. Reach him at slieberm@lohud.com. Twitter: @lohudlegal.
Read more articles and bio. Our local coverage is only possible with support from our readers.
This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News: NY elections: Rockland County GOP chair appeals Ugell ballot ruling
