as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department. The second cause
of action in the complaint only sought relief from O’Neill.
880 65 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
the number of languages provided has varied considerably.
Based on these assertions, the Board alleges that it is entitled
to a judgment declaring that the operation of the program in
its entirety, and not just its operation within 100 feet of the
poll site entrances, (1) violates the constitutional requirement
that matters relating to elections be conducted by a bipartisan
agency under New York Constitution, article II, § 8, (2) is
preempted by the Election Law, and (3) is preempted by the
federal Voting Rights Act. Defendants have answered and have
moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and
the Board, in turn, has cross-moved for summary judgment
requesting, as noted above, a declaration that MOIA’s inter-
preter program violates New York Constitution, article II, § 8
and is preempted by the Election Law.
In moving, the City defendants emphasize that the inter-
preter program falls within the bailiwick of MOIA’s responsibil-
ity to advise and assist the Mayor and the City Council with
policies that provide assistance with respect to language ac-
cessability for immigrants and speakers of languages other
than English in the City (NY City Charter § 18 [b] [1]). Mos-
tofi, in her affidavit, states that the City relied on a third-party
vendor to recruit and hire interpreters, but that it provided
City employed supervisors to train and supervise the interpret-
ers. Among other things, Mostofi stated that the training ses-
sions and the materials provided to the interpreters emphasize
that their responsibilities are strictly limited to providing in-