DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the final order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petitions are denied, the proceedings are dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Board of Elections of the City of New York to restore the names of Sandra E. Roper, Eileen N. Nadelson, and Peter P. Sweeney to the appropriate ballots.
As a general rule, a candidate's designating petition will be invalidated on the ground that some signatures have been obtained by fraud only if there is a showing that the entire designating petition is permeated with that fraud ( Matter of Ferraro v. McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 601, 603; Matter of Proskin v. May, 40 N.Y.2d 829, 830; Matter of Aronson v. Power, 22 N.Y.2d 759, 760). However, even where the designating petition is not permeated with fraud, when the candidate has participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud, the designating petition will generally be invalidated ( see, Matter of Flower v. D'Apice, 104 A.D.2d 578, affd 63 N.Y.2d 715; Matter of Layden v. Gargiulo, 77 A.D.2d 933, 934; Matter of MacDougall v. Board of Elections, 133 A.D.2d 198).
The Supreme Court correctly determined that there were instances of fraud relating to the designating petition in question. However, we find that the totality of such instances does not rise to the level at which it could be said that the designating petition was permeated with fraud ( see, Matter of Calvi v. McLaughlin, 264 A.D.2d 453; Matter of Miller v. Boyland, 143 A.D.2d 237; Matter of Thomas v. Simon, 89 A.D.2d 952, affd 57 N.Y.2d 744). In addition, we find that the petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the appellant candidates participated in or are chargeable with knowledge of the fraud ( see, Matter of Meeks v. Pruitt, 185 A.D.2d 961; Matter of Cullen v. Power, 21 A.D.2d 698, affd 14 N.Y.2d 760; Matter of Corrente v. McNab, 96 A.D.2d 915).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.