MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the application to invalidate the designating petition of appellant Rafael Colon denied.
In July 1989, Colon filed a designating petition seeking to be placed on the ballot in the New York City Democratic primary, for the office of Council Member in a district which contained portions of different assembly districts. Colon's designating petition consisted of three volumes, each also containing signatures collected on behalf of other candidates, including candidates for county-wide office and candidates running solely within one of the assembly districts. Colon needed 1,500 signatures; he actually filed 6,940, and recorded that precise number on his cover sheet. On respondent's challenge to the accuracy of the cover sheet, Supreme Court determined that 1,099 (or 15.8%) of the signatures were invalid, because the signatories were not residents of the council district, but the court sustained Colon's petition on the ground that Election Law § 6-134 (9) was inapplicable and the 5,841 remaining valid signatures were far more than required. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the inclusion of 1,099 out-of-district signatures rendered Colon's cover sheet defective, and relying on Election Law § 6-134 (9) as well as its own decision in Matter of Catucci v Marchi ( 143 A.D.2d 59, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 914).
A cover sheet must indicate "the total number of signatures contained in [the designating] petition." (Election Law § 6-134.) Here, the cover sheet undisputedly satisfied that requirement by correctly recording the total number of signatures actually contained in Colon's petition. Election Law § 6-134 does not additionally require that a cover sheet separately identify or segregate the number of in- and out-of-district signatures, or the number of valid signatures. Nor can we agree with the Appellate Division that the present case is analogous to Matter of Hargett v Jefferson ( 63 N.Y.2d 696), where the cover sheet vastly overstated the number of signatures actually contained in the petition. The Appellate Division's reliance on Catucci (supra) and on Election Law § 6-134 (9) — which is addressed to misstated signature numbers on cover sheets — were therefore erroneous.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur in memorandum; Judge ALEXANDER taking no part.
Order reversed, etc.