parties, and confirm the election, order anew election, or take such other action asjustice may require.As well stated in an earlier Supreme Court decision applyingthis statute, “[t]he court has broad equitable powers and maydirect a new election where the election under review is ‘soclouded with doubt or tainted with questionable circumstancesthat the standards of fair dealing require the court to order anew, clear and adequate expression.’" In re F. I. G. H. T.,Inc., 79 Misc.2d 655, 659 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co., 1974). However,the court “should not interfere in the internal affairs of acorporation of this character unless a clear showing is made towarrant such action.” Id., citing Matter of Wyatt v. Armstrong,186 Misc. 216, 220 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., 1945), quoted in Scipioniv. YMCA of Rochester and Monroe Co., 105 A.D.2d 1113 (4 Dept.
1984). “[I]n the absence of any appearance of fraud orintentional wrongdoing, courts usually direct new elections onlywhen correction of an alleged grievance would affect the resultof the election.” Blanksteen v. New York Mercantile Exch., 879F. Supp. 363, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)(citing In re Election Officersand Directors of F.I.G.H.T., Inc., 79 Misc.2d 655, supra; Burkev. Wiswall, 193 Misc. 14 (Sup. Ct. Ulster County 1948).“Furthermore, election procedures for not-for-profit corporationsare not to be disturbed without a showing that an election wastainted by fraud or wrongdoing.” Parisi v. N.Y. Co. Med.