Opinion
2011-08-16
In the Matter of Matthew MASTRANTONE, appellant,v.Roger CHIRICO, etc., et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16–102, inter alia, to validate a petition designating Matthew Mastrantone as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2011, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Highway Superintendent for the Town of Philipstown, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated August 9, 2011, which, after a hearing, among other things, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly determined that the signatures of several voters on his designating petition were invalid since those voters previously had *466 signed the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office ( see Election Law § 6–134[3]; Matter of Ehrlich v. Biamonte, 65 A.D.3d 990, 885 N.Y.S.2d 101; Matter of Venuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30; Matter of Rabadi v. Galan, 307 A.D.2d 1014, 763 N.Y.S.2d 503). Consequently, the petitioner's designating petition did not contain the required number of valid signatures ( see Election Law § 6–136[2]; Matter of Ehrlich v. Biamonte, 65 A.D.3d at 990, 885 N.Y.S.2d 101; Matter of James v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 21 A.D.3d 507, 799 N.Y.S.2d 751).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., COVELLO, BALKIN, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.