From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1976
38 N.Y.2d 993 (N.Y. 1976)

Summary

stating that ED, AD requirements are "designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud" in petitions

Summary of this case from Schulz v. Williams

Opinion

Argued March 29, 1976

Decided March 30, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, VICTOR J. ORGERA, J.

Samuel Rutter for appellants.

Harold M. Rothstein, respondent pro se.


MEMORANDUM.

The requirements of subdivision 3 of section 135 of the Election Law are designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in designation petitions. This purpose may only be achieved by mandating uniform and strict compliance with the statutory requirements (Matter of Sciarra v Donnelly, 34 N.Y.2d 970; Gordon v Catania, 34 N.Y.2d 964; Matter of Clune v Hayduk, 34 N.Y.2d 965). To make exceptions, county by county, although seemingly justified in a particular instance, sanctions a practice which in another circumstance could lead to abuses (cf. Matter of Berry v Dodd, 38 N.Y.2d 995, involving Nassau County).


There was substantial compliance here with the requirements of subdivision 3 of section 135 of the Election Law. Accordingly, we would reverse on the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice JAMES D. HOPKINS at the Appellate Division, noting that this case is one involving a Suffolk County election and that, in that county, as in all but 6 of the 62 counties in the State, the setting forth of a subscribing witness' election district fully serves the function which the furnishing of such a witness' assembly district may otherwise fulfill in protecting against fraud or irregularity. Significantly, petitions in Suffolk may indicate signers' election rather than assembly districts (§ 135, subd 1). Thus the election district was not only the regular index for the checking of all signatures of witnesses or subscribers on the petitions here, but the more convenient one as well. Interestingly, when subdivision 3 of section 135 was amended in 1971, the qualifying word "material" was added to the statute for the first time, the word "substantially" was continued and the words "where required" inserted to follow "Assembly District". These nonabsolutes can have had no purpose other than to evince an intention not to disenfranchise voters for the kind of nonprejudicial technicality on which the petitions here were invalidated. Any other interpretation would elevate form over substance in a matter as vital to us as the election process.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges GABRIELLI, JONES and WACHTLER concur; Judges JASEN, FUCHSBERG and COOKE dissent and vote to reverse in a memorandum.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1976
38 N.Y.2d 993 (N.Y. 1976)

stating that ED, AD requirements are "designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud" in petitions

Summary of this case from Schulz v. Williams
Case details for

Matter of Rutter v. Coveney

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EVELYN RUTTER et al., Appellants, v. FRANK COVENEY et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 30, 1976

Citations

38 N.Y.2d 993 (N.Y. 1976)
384 N.Y.S.2d 437
348 N.E.2d 913

Citing Cases

Matter of Higby v. Mahoney

The claim is made that by reason of this circumstance the omission of assembly district number should not…

Matter of Hunter v. Compagni

The addition of these 221 signatures raised appellants' total to 1,242 — still eight fewer than required.…