Opinion
September 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the cross-appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The respondent-appellant is not aggrieved by the judgment as it granted his application to validate his designating petition, denied the application to invalidate, and directed that his name be placed on the ballot (CPLR 5511).
The appellants-respondents contend that the court erred in refusing to invalidate the designating petition of Adolphus C. Frazier upon the ground that all signatures witnessed by a certain Commissioner of Deeds should be invalidated because the Commissioner failed to take the oaths of the signatories. We find that the Supreme Court properly invalidated those 38 signatures that were witnessed by the Commissioner of Deeds and concerning which testimony was adduced at trial that the Commissioner failed to swear those signatories (see, Matter of Boyle v New York City Bd. of Elections, 185 A.D.2d 953; Matter of Zunno v Fein, 175 A.D.2d 935, 936). However, we find that the appellants-respondents' attempt, based on principles of permeation, to rebut the strong presumption of regularity that a public officer has performed the duty imposed upon him by law with respect to the remaining 323 signatures, was insufficient (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Harris, 51 N.Y.2d 737, 738; Matter of Caruso v Casciola, 27 N.Y.2d 657, 658; Matter of Ogilvie v Salerno, 77 A.D.2d 961, 962; Matter of Napier v Salerno, 74 A.D.2d 960). We note that as to the remaining signatures taken by the Commissioner, no testimony or affidavits were submitted (cf., Matter of Haskell v Gargiulo, 51 N.Y.2d 747, 748; Matter of Frink v Hill, 37 A.D.2d 776, 777, affd 29 N.Y.2d 657).
We have examined the appellants-respondents' remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.