Election Law § 6–134(2) provides, inter alia, that the sheets of a designating petition must be numbered (see 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [a] ). However, that section also provides that the regulations promulgated thereunder for the submission of petitions “shall be no more restrictive than is reasonably necessary for the processing of such petitions by the board of elections” (Election Law § 6–134[2] ; see 9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a]; Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 462, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166 ). Section 6–134(2) further provides that, when a board of elections determines that a petition does not comply with the regulations, the candidate or candidates must be notified and afforded three business days in which to cure the defect (see 9 NYCRR 6215.7 [a]–[d] ).
Election Law § 6–134, which pertains to designating petitions, states, in pertinent part, “[t]he provisions of this section shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto” (Election Law § 6–134[10] ). Here, contrary to the contention of the Board of Elections in the City of New York (hereinafter the Board), the amended cover sheet of the designating petition, as it related to Hayon, substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Law and the regulations of the New York State Board of Elections, despite Hayon's listing of two volumes on his amended cover sheet which were not filed as part of his designating petition ( seeElection Law § 6–134[10]; 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]; see also Matter of Krance v. Chiaramonte, 87 A.D.3d 669, 928 N.Y.S.2d 480;Matter of Magelaner v. Park, 32 A.D.3d 487, 819 N.Y.S.2d 488;Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166;Matter of Siems v. Lite, 307 A.D.2d 1016, 763 N.Y.S.2d 501;Matter of Most v. Walker, 297 A.D.2d 356, 357, 746 N.Y.S.2d 410;Matter of Ardesia v. Seidel, 242 A.D.2d 343, 661 N.Y.S.2d 991). In any event, we find that Hayon was not actually notified of, and given the opportunity to cure, the purported “extra volumes” defect of the cover sheet, as required by the Rules of the Board ( see9 NYCRR 6215.7[b]; Matter of Krance v. Chiaramonte, 87 A.D.3d at 669, 928 N.Y.S.2d 480;Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d at 462, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166).
ORDERED that the final order entered in Proceeding No. 2 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition to validate is granted, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to place the name of Terence Y. Park on the appropriate ballot. Terence Y. Park's amended cover sheet was in substantial compliance with the Election Law and the rules promulgated by the Board of Elections of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) and presented no danger of fraud or confusion either to the Board or to the voters ( see Election Law § 6-134; 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]; Matter of Pearse v. New York City Board of Elections, 10 AD3d 461, 462; Matter of Siems v. Lite, 307 AD2d 1016; Matter of Most v. Walker, 297 AD2d 356, 357; Matter of Jonas v. Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685). As a result, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to invalidate the designating petition ( see 9 NYCRR 6215.7[d]) and in denying the petition to validate the designating petition ( see Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 AD3d at 462). PRUDENTI, P.J., ADAMS, LUCIANO, SKELOS and LIFSON, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the final order entered in proceeding No. 2 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the petition to validate is granted, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to place the name of Terence Y. Park on the appropriate ballot. Terence Y. Park's amended cover sheet was in substantial compliance with the Election Law and the rules promulgated by the Board of Elections of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) and presented no danger of fraud or confusion either to the Board or to the voters ( see Election Law § 6-134; 9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a]; Matter of Pearse v New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 AD3d 461, 462; Matter of Siems v Lite, 307 AD2d 1016; Matter of Most v Walker, 297 AD2d 356, 357; Matter of Jonas v Black, 104 AD2d 466, affd 63 NY2d 685). As a result, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to invalidate the designating petition ( see 9 NYCRR 6215.7 [d]) and in denying the petition to validate the designating petition ( see Matter of Pearse v New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 AD3d at 462).
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in a case directly on point with the instant matter found reversible error when the court below invalidated a designating petition on the grounds that a candidate violated New York State Board of Elections rules by failing to utilize petition volume identification numbers ( Matter of Siems v Lite, 307 AD2d 1016, lv dismissed 100 NY2d 614, lv denied 100 NY2d 510). Specifically, the Second Department succinctly stated that "[t]here is no justification for invalidating the designating petitions under those rules, which are to be liberally construed" ( id.; see also Matter of Magelaner v Park, 32 AD3d 487; Matter of Pearse v New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 AD3d 461, 462). That ruling and its progeny are in accord with basic policy considerations which disfavor the disenfranchisement of potential voters based upon de minimis cover sheet errors which hold no potential to cause confusion amongst said voters or the Board of Elections.
The Supreme Court properly found that the candidates cured the defects in their original designating petition within the time allowed by the Election Law. The regulations promulgated pursuant to Election Law § 6–134(2) provide, inter alia, that the sheets of a designating "petition shall be numbered sequentially at the foot of each sheet" ( 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [a] ), and "[a]ny two or more petition sheets shall be securely fastened together by any means which will hold the pages together in numerical order" ( 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [c] ). However, Election Law § 6–134(2) provides that the regulations promulgated thereunder for the submission of petitions "shall be no more restrictive than is reasonably necessary for the processing of such petitions by the board of elections" (see 9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a]; Matter of Zulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d 656, 658, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 462, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166 ). Election Law § 6–134(2) further provides that, when a board of elections determines that a designating petition does not comply with the regulations, the candidate or candidates must be notified and afforded three business days in which to cure the defect (see 9 NYCRR 6215.7 [a]-[d] ). Here, by filing a complete and exact copy of the original designating petition with numbered and stapled pages within three days of the Board's determination that the designating petition was invalid, the candidates cured the defects of the original designating petition (see Matter of Zulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d at 659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; see also Matter of Bonnett v. Miner, 275 A.D.2d 585, 586–587, 713 N.Y.S.2d 87 ; Matter of May v. Daly, 254 A.D.2d 688, 689, 678 N.Y.S.2d 415 ).
The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Although the provisions of the Election Law “shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud” (Election Law § 6–134[10]; see9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a] ), this matter does not involve a mere technical defect subject to cure pursuant to Election Law § 6–134(2) ( see Matter of Armwood v. McCloy, 109 A.D.3d 558, 970 N.Y.S.2d 802;cf. Matter of Krance v. Chiaramonte, 87 A.D.3d 669, 928 N.Y.S.2d 480;Matter of Magelaner v. Park, 32 A.D.3d 487, 488, 819 N.Y.S.2d 488;Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 462, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166;Matter of Siems v. Lite, 307 A.D.2d 1016, 763 N.Y.S.2d 501;Matter of Most v. Walker, 297 A.D.2d 356, 357, 746 N.Y.S.2d 410). Rather, the express terms of the cover sheet drafted and submitted by the petitioners directed the Board to disregard the designating petitions as void and not accept them for filing.
Thus, the Supreme Court could not properly determine that petitioner was notified. Accordingly, the petitioner was not given the full statutory opportunity to cure the purported defect in the cover sheet nor was she properly notified as required by the Rules of the Board of Elections ( see Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166 [2d Dept. 2004];Matter of Krance v. Chiaramonte, 87 A.D.3d 669, 928 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2d Dept. 2011]lv. denied17 N.Y.3d 706, 2011 WL 4357224 [2011] ). It was error for the Board of Elections to remove the candidate from the ballot.
Here, the cover sheets of the designating petitions, as they related to Paul S. Chiaramonte (hereinafter the candidate), substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Law and the regulations of the New York State Board of Elections, to allow for the Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board of Elections) to cumulatively count the signatures within the subject designating petitions to reach the required minimum number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-134[10]; 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]; see also Matter of Siems v Lite, 307 AD2d 1016; Matter of Most v Walker, 297 AD2d 356, 357). In any event, the candidate was not notified of, and given the opportunity to cure, the purported defect, as required (see Matter of Pearse v New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 AD3d 461). We do not reach the Board of Elections' contention pertaining to the invalidation of the candidate's Working Families Party designating petition, as it is not properly before this Court.
Here, the cover sheets of the designating petitions, as they related to Paul S. Chiaramonte (hereinafter the candidate), substantially complied with the requirements of the Election Law and the regulations of the New York State Board of Elections, to allow for the Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter the Board of Elections) to cumulatively count the signatures within the subject designating petitions to reach the required minimum number of valid signatures ( see Election Law § 6–134[10]; 9 NYCRR 6215.6[a]; see also Matter of Siems v. Lite, 307 A.D.2d 1016, 763 N.Y.S.2d 501; Matter of Most v. Walker, 297 A.D.2d 356, 357, 746 N.Y.S.2d 410). In any event, the candidate was not notified of, and given the opportunity to cure, the purported defect, as required ( see Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166). We do not reach the Board of Elections' contention pertaining to the invalidation of the candidate's Working Families Party designating petition, as it is not properly before this Court.