A state appellate court has ruled that U.S. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-New York, may run for state attorney general while already being the Democratic nominee for his lower Hudson Valley congressional district.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a decision from earlier this month by Albany Supreme Court Justice Denise Hartman that allowed Maloney to keep his name on the ballot for Congress unless he wins the statewide primary for attorney general next month.

Maloney's campaigns were represented by Martin E. Connor, an election law attorney. The plaintiffs in the case were represented by Paul DerOhannesian of DerOhannesian & DerOhannesian in Albany.

In a unanimous decision, the court decided that a provision of state law allows Maloney to remain the nominated candidate for Congress until the September primary for state attorney general. If he wins the September primary, state law allows him to decline his congressional nomination immediately following the election, the court said in its decision.

That's because Maloney is technically not running for two incompatible offices until he's the Democratic nominee for state attorney general, the court said. The plaintiffs in the case, a group of Hudson Valley residents, claimed in their lawsuit last month that Maloney was running for two offices that he could not hold simultaneously.

“Indeed, until Maloney secures the Democratic Party nomination to run for Attorney General, it cannot be stated that he is running for two incompatible public offices,” the decision said.

Connor said Friday the statute he used to argue the case, and the court cited in its decision, is plainly in Maloney's favor.

“The statute is pretty clear. It says if you get a second nomination, you can decline the first,” Connor said. “They understood the law and they discussed the law and found in our favor. I'm not surprised, that's what the law is.”

Connor was referring to a section of state election law passed by the Legislature in 1976 specifically to address when a candidate is nominated for a second office after first receiving a different nomination during the same election cycle.

According to Election Law Section 6-146, a person who receives a second nomination in the same election cycle “may decline such first nomination or nominations not later than the third day after the filing of the certificate of his nomination or nominations for such other office.”

Connor argued this week that Maloney's situation is exactly what the Legislature intended to address when it passed the law. The court agreed in its decision.

“In the event that Maloney does secure the nomination for Attorney General following the September 2018 primary election … Maloney may still decline the initial congressional nomination and avoid the impermissible status of being a dual candidate simultaneously running for two incompatible offices,” the decision said.

DerOhannesian said on Friday his clients will seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. The court will hear arguments regarding primary ballot challenges next week.

“We think that if this decision is upheld, candidates will be able to run for multiple offices throughout election cycles,” DerOhannesian said. “We also feel it conflicts with previous Second Department rulings in this area.”

DerOhannesian said details on how the decision may conflict with previous rulings will be included in papers set to be filed with the Court of Appeals later on Friday.

The lawsuit was originally brought by the Republican running in Maloney's congressional district, James O'Donnell, and a group of residents from the district. John Ciampoli, a private election law attorney, represented the plaintiffs during the Supreme Court hearing.

They were originally challenging Maloney's petitions for both Congress and the attorney general nomination, but dropped the latter challenge before the Supreme Court hearing. They have argued two main points, the first being that Maloney's dual candidacies are illegal because of their incompatibility.

The other argument has been that Maloney's decision to seek the attorney general nomination disenfranchises voters in the 18th Congressional District, because they will not know who the Democratic nominee in the district will be until after the September primary.

The plaintiffs argued before Hartman earlier this month that Maloney's congressional petitions should be invalidated because there's no guarantee that he will drop his nomination following a win in the September primary.

The appellate judges said the case as it's presented before them does not question whether Maloney will actually decline the nomination for Congress, it only looks at whether he is allowed to do so.

If Maloney does win the September primary, he will have to move quick to drop his nomination for Congress to avoid further litigation.

Maloney is one of four Democrats running for the nomination. He's competing against New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, Fordham Law Professor Zephyr Teachout, and Leecia Eve, a lobbyist for Verizon and former Cuomo administration official.

The statewide primary is scheduled for September 13.