Brodsky v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

Respondent’s penalty determination was not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. Based on the information before it, respondent acted reasonably in concluding that petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the postelection payments to petitioner Feinsot represented routine and nominal expenses necessary for compliance with the postelection audit, *450and that the postelection payment to Staples for a 2005 holiday card mailing was a routine and nominal expense associated with winding up the campaign (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 3-710; 52 RCNY 5-03 [e] [2] [ii]).…