AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

In the Matter of Frank MacKay, et al., respondents-appellants, v. Jean W. Cochran, et al., appellants-respondents, Barbara Barci, et al., respondents.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the final order is modified by (1) deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Theresa Morris and Richard Morris as candidates for the party positions of delegates, and Richard Harms and Susan Harms as alternates, to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Tenth Assembly District, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the petition, and (2) deleting therefrom the provision granting that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the petition designating Arnold B. Firestone and Valerie Hudgins as candidates for the party positions of delegates, and Amy J. Krinner and Robert DiGregorio as alternates, to the Tenth Judicial District Convention, Eighth Assembly District, and substituting therefore a provision denying that branch of the petition; as so modified, the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Election Law § 6-132 Elec. (2) requires that each sheet of a designating petition must contain a statement of a subscribing witness which shall be dated and signed by that witness. The date is a matter of prescribed content and therefore strict compliance is required ( see, Matter of Hutson v. Bass, 54 N.Y.2d 772; Matter of Frome v. Board of Elections of Nassau County, 89 A.D.2d 950, 951). Here, the date is incomplete on sheets two and three of the Morris-Harms designating petition ( see, Matter of Purtell v. Kuczek, 112 A.D.2d 1092, 1093). Excluding the signatures on those two sheets, the number of remaining signatures on that petition is insufficient.

Pursuant to Election Law § 6-132 Elec. (3) the identification of the notary by title alone is sufficient ( see, Matter of Bay v. Santoianni, 264 A.D.2d 488 [2d Dept., Aug 23, 1999]; Matter of Brown v. Suffolk County Board of Elections, 264 A.D.2d 489 [2d Dept., Aug 23, 1999]; Matter of Fuentes v. Lopez, 264 A.D.2d 490 [2d Dept., Aug 23, 1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in invalidating the Firestone-Hudgins-Krinner-DiGregorio designating petition on the ground that the notaries failed to stamp the petition sheets.

The remaining contention is without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, FRIEDMANN, and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF MacKAY v. COCHRAN
(Sep 10, 1999)