Judgment modified, on the law, by adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof after the word "hereby", the words "granted only to the extent of directing that the names and emblems of the respective independent bodies appear on the ballot in the row of the major party designated by each of the respective petitioners or, if not designated by each of such petitioners, designated, with respect to the petitioner or petitioners who so fail to act, by the appropriate officer in accordance with section 7-104 Elec. of the Election Law, and in all other respects the petition is". As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioners have been designated by two, and in some cases three, major parties in addition to having been designated by their respective independent bodies. It is well settled that section 7-104 Elec. of the Election Law denies an independent row to a candidate who already appears on the ballot as the candidate of at least two major parties ( Matter of Kiley v Coveney, 84 A.D.2d 585, affd 55 N.Y.2d 866; Matter of Cherry v Hayduk, 49 A.D.2d 934; Matter of Smith v McNab, 35 A.D.2d 744; see, also, Matter of Battista v Power, 16 N.Y.2d 198). Therefore, petitioners' names may not appear on the ballot other than on the rows of the major parties which have selected them. The judgment in this case, however, should have permitted the names and emblems of the respective independent bodies to appear on the ballot in the row of the major party designated by each of the respective petitioners ( Matter of Hentel v Power, 18 N.Y.2d 834; Matter of Button v Donohue, 18 N.Y.2d 792; Matter of Kiley v Coveney, supra). Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.