QUEENS, NY A contentious legal battle is underway in Queens, where lawyers representing the Queens County Democratic Party have accused judicial candidate Philip Grant of submitting fraudulent ballot petitions signatures in his bid for Civil Court. The accusations were presented in court this week as part of a broader challenge to the legitimacy of several pages of voter signatures allegedly collected by a single canvasser.
The case, heard in Queens Supreme Court, Civil Term, stems from allegations that nearly all signatures on four petition sheets each bearing the name of witness Ashanti Sharper were forged. The attorneys, Frank Bolz and Michael Reich of Sweeney, Reich & Bolz LLP, are representing Gail Adams, the party-endorsed candidate and Grant’s opponent in the upcoming Democratic primary.
Forgery Allegations and Legal Claims
The controversy centers on petitions submitted to qualify Grant and several other candidates for the June ballot. Included on the contested petition sheets are names for candidates Ruben Wills (City Council), Marty Dolan (Public Advocate), and Ismael Malave Perez (Comptroller). Though these individuals are listed on the same documents, they are not named as defendants in the current lawsuit.
One of the petition sheets in question had already drawn scrutiny earlier this month when the Queens Eagle uncovered apparent irregularities in the signatures. According to attorneys for Adams, the discrepancies are widespread enough to suggest systematic fraud. They argue that Sharper, the sole witness for the signatures, either fabricated or misrepresented them—an act that could result in the invalidation of multiple candidacies if proven.
When contacted by the Eagle, Sharper did not respond to calls placed to a number believed to be associated with her South Queens address.
Read More: Office Politics Unveiled: When the Workplace Turns into a Campaign
First-Hand Accounts and Community Response
Concerns about forgery gained traction when several individuals whose names appeared on the petition sheets publicly stated they never signed them. Residents of the South Jamaica Houses, including Marcia Pearce, voiced outrage over what they described as political manipulation.
“That’s fraud,” Pearce told the Eagle. “You want to put my signature on a piece of paper? But when we need help in the projects, you don’t come and help us.”
Pearce, whose name appeared on the petitions along with six supposed roommates she says do not exist, is now a witness in the case. Another individual listed is Latoya LeGrand, one of Wills’ primary opponents. Though LeGrand did not comment publicly, a comparison of her actual signature on file with the Board of Elections and the one on the petition revealed notable differences.
These accounts have added weight to the lawsuit brought forth by Adams’ legal team. Their objective is to disqualify Grant from the ballot by proving that the petitions are invalid.
Candidate Defense and Legal Strategy
Representing Grant is attorney Mark Hanna, who has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Hanna argues that the claims made by the plaintiffs are vague and lack sufficient specificity to warrant legal action.
However, according to court documents, most of the evidence and factual details had been submitted before Monday’s hearing. The case is expected to resume next Tuesday afternoon, following a review by the Board of Elections scheduled for Monday.
Grant, a Brooklyn resident, has previously served as an assistant attorney general, private attorney, and law clerk in Kings County. His eligibility to run in Queens may face additional scrutiny should the signatures supporting his candidacy be deemed invalid.
Wider Legal Fallout Across Queens Elections
The lawsuit against Grant is just one of several ballot-related challenges moving through the Queens courts. On Monday, multiple other cases were briefly heard before being adjourned to next week, pending official verification of petition signatures.
Those facing similar scrutiny include:
- Supreet McGrath, Republican candidate in District 29
- Vera Daniels, Democrat in District 27
- Bernard Chow, Republican in District 23
- Allen Wang, Republican in District 21
Each of these candidates appeared in court as opponents filed formal objections to their petition submissions. All of the associated hearings are now set for resolution next Tuesday, once the Board of Elections completes its analysis.
Candidate Withdrawals and Disqualifications
In a separate development, judicial candidate Teresita A. Morales agreed to withdraw her name from the ballot ahead of Monday’s hearings. No further details were immediately available on the agreement that led to her withdrawal.
Other candidates, however, were less responsive. Michael Lopez, a Democratic hopeful in District 30, and Joseph Chou, a Republican running in District 20, failed to appear in court to defend challenges filed against them. As a result, Judge Tracy Catapano-Fox ruled to disqualify both candidates from the ballot on Tuesday.
Lopez, a local priest based in Ridgewood, said he remains undeterred by the court’s decision and is considering a run as an independent.
“My team and I are deciding whether or not we want to go for an independent run,” Lopez said in a statement to the Eagle. “We haven’t really made a decision yet. I want to consult with my family and staff and make sure that everybody’s on the same page.”
He added, “My worth and my life is not really decided by whether or not I become a councilmember.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is the Queens judicial candidate accused of filing fraudulent petitions?
The candidate in question is Philip Grant, who is running for a seat on the Queens Civil Court. He faces allegations of submitting forged signatures to qualify for the Democratic primary ballot.
What are the allegations against Philip Grant?
Attorneys representing his opponent allege that many signatures on his petition sheets were forged. They claim the signatures were collected improperly and witnessed falsely, potentially violating election laws.
Who filed the lawsuit challenging the petitions?
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Gail Adams, the Democratic Party-backed candidate running against Grant. Her legal team is seeking to disqualify him from the ballot.
Who is the witness named in the fraudulent petition sheets?
The petition sheets were witnessed by Ashanti Sharper, who is accused of verifying signatures that may have been forged or fabricated.
Were other candidates listed on the same petition sheets?
Yes. The same sheets included names of candidates for other offices, including Ruben Wills (City Council), Marty Dolan (Public Advocate), and Ismael Malave Perez (Comptroller). However, these candidates are not named in the lawsuit.
How were the fraudulent signatures discovered?
Several voters whose names appeared on the petitions stated publicly that they never signed any campaign materials. Some names were also found to be fake or duplicated.
What are the legal consequences if the allegations are proven?
If the court finds the signatures fraudulent, Grant could be removed from the primary ballot, which would leave Gail Adams unopposed in the Democratic race for Queens Civil Court.
Conclusion
The allegations of fraudulent ballot petitions against Queens judicial candidate Philip Grant have cast a spotlight on the integrity of the election process. As legal proceedings unfold, the outcome could reshape the ballot and significantly impact the upcoming Democratic primary.
With serious questions raised about petition authenticity and campaign accountability, this case underscores the importance of transparency and due diligence in local elections. Voters, candidates, and officials alike now await the Board of Elections’ findings and the court’s final ruling, which will determine whether Grant remains in the race—or is disqualified from contention.