Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We conclude that petitioners have failed to sustain their burden of proof that the challenged subscribing witness no longer resided at the address listed in his statement in the designating petition at the time he signed that statement. There was no testimony by an individual with personal knowledge of the current residence of the witness sufficient to challenge the validity of his statement in the petition, which is the equivalent of a sworn affidavit entitled to a presumption of regularity (Election Law, § 6-132, subd. 2; see Matter of Rittersporn v Sadowski, 48 N.Y.2d 618; Matter of Napier v Salerno, 74 A.D.2d 960). Moreover, petitioners have failed to establish that they properly served subpoenas on the subscribing witness, members of his family, or on the candidate (see Matter of Dilan v Carulli, 57 A.D.2d 636, aff'd 41 N.Y.2d 1054). Bracken, J.P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.