Voters' signatures on designating or independent nominating petitions that do not meaningfully compare with the signatures on the same voters' registration forms should be invalidated ( see Matter of Quercia v. Bernstein, 87 A.D.3d 652, 653, 928 N.Y.S.2d 346;Matter of Rabadi v. Galan, 307 A.D.2d 1014, 763 N.Y.S.2d 503). Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly invalidated those signatures that were inscribed in print rather than script form on Quirk's independent nominating petition, since the alleged signatories had signed their registration forms in script, and Quirk submitted no credible evidence from the signatories or from any of the subscribing witnesses attesting to the fact that the individuals who signed the registration forms were the same individuals whose signatures appeared on the independent nominating petition ( seeElection Law § 5–210 [5] [k][xi]; § 6–134[5], [13]; Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507;Matter of Henry v. Trotto, 54 A.D.3d 424, 426, 862 N.Y.S.2d 605;Matter of Jaffee v. Kelly, 32 A.D.3d 485, 819 N.Y.S.2d 485;Matter of Rabadi v. Galan, 307 A.D.2d 1014, 763 N.Y.S.2d 503). To prevent fraud and allow for a meaningful comparison of signatures when challenged, a signature on an independent nominating petition should be made in the same manner as on that signatory's registration form ( seeElection Law § 6–134[10]; Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d at 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507;Matter of Henry v. Trotto, 54 A.D.3d at 426, 862 N.Y.S.2d 605).

"To prevent fraud and allow for a meaningful comparison of signatures when challenged, a signature on a designating petition should be made in the same manner as on that signatory's registration form" (Matter of Lord v New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 623 [2d Dept 2012]). Upon review of the voter registration forms submitted into evidence (Petitioner's Ex. 7), the court finds that nine individuals who printed some or all of the letters of their names on Carlisle's designating petitions signed in the same manner as when they originally registered to vote: Carolyn Blose, Mary Dressel, Martha Malkiewicz, Kathryn Brysinski, Eya Amin Ara, Danielle Seelbinder, Jennifer C. Regan, Sheryl A. Kavanagh, Robert Ventry.

The Board determined that Jones submitted 202 valid signatures, and Jones and the objectors thereafter stipulated that the findings of the Board were "uncontroverted." Thus, the number of valid signatures on Jones's designating petition was insufficient to meet the requirements of Election Law § 6-136(2)(g) (see Matter of Council v Zapata, 183 A.D.3d 678, 682; Matter of Avella v Johnson, 142 A.D.3d 1111, 1113; Matter of Lord v New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 624).

On appeal, petitioner contends that the court should have struck 47 signatures inasmuch as they were printed on the independent nominating petition, whereas they were inscribed in script on the signatories’ voter registration forms. "It is well settled that [t]o prevent fraud and allow for a meaningful comparison of signatures when challenged, a signature on a designating petition should be made in the same manner as on that signatory's registration form" ( Matter ofToles v. Quintana , 183 A.D.3d 1290, 1292, 123 N.Y.S.3d 786 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905, 2020 WL 2529764 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter ofLord v. New York State Bd. of Elections , 98 A.D.3d 622, 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2d Dept. 2012] ; Matter ofHenry v. Trotto , 54 A.D.3d 424, 426, 862 N.Y.S.2d 605 [2d Dept. 2008] ). Nevertheless, where there is "credible evidence from the signatories or from any of the subscribing witnesses attesting to the fact that the individuals who signed the registration forms were the same individuals whose signatures appeared on the independent nominating petition," the signatures are valid, notwithstanding a discrepancy with the voter registration forms ( Matter ofLaMarca v. Quirk , 110 A.D.3d 808, 810, 973 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2d Dept. 2013] ; see Matter ofHennessy v. Board of Elections of County of Oneida , 175 A.D.3d 1777, 1779, 109 N.Y.S.3d 525 [4th Dept. 2019] ).

On appeal, petitioner contends that the court should have struck 47 signatures inasmuch as they were printed on the independent nominating petition, whereas they were inscribed in script on the signatories' voter registration forms. "It is well settled that [t]o prevent fraud and allow for a meaningful comparison of signatures when challenged, a signature on a designating petition should be made in the same manner as on that signatory's registration form" (Matter of Toles v Quintana, 183 A.D.3d 1290, 1292 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Lord v New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 623 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of Henry v Trotto, 54 A.D.3d 424, 426 [2d Dept 2008]). Nevertheless, where there is "credible evidence from the signatories or from any of the subscribing witnesses attesting to the fact that the individuals who signed the registration forms were the same individuals whose signatures appeared on the independent nominating petition," the signatures are valid, notwithstanding a discrepancy with the voter registration forms (Matter of LaMarca v Quirk, 110 A.D.3d 808, 810 [2d Dept 2013]; see Matter of Hennessy v Board of Elections of County of Oneida, 175 A.D.3d 1777, 1779 [4th Dept 2019]).

Given the illegibility of some of the printed signatures on the designating petition, the exact number of corresponding voter registration cards that petitioners submitted is unclear, but the parties agree in their briefs that petitioners submitted only 31 voter registration cards as part of their case in chief. It is well settled that "[t]o prevent fraud and allow for a meaningful comparison of signatures when challenged, a signature on a designating petition should be made in the same manner as on that signatory's registration form" ( Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections , 98 A.D.3d 622, 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2d Dept. 2012] ; seeMatter of LaMarca v. Quirk , 110 A.D.3d 808, 810, 973 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2d Dept. 2013] ; Matter of Henry v. Trotto , 54 A.D.3d 424, 426, 862 N.Y.S.2d 605 [2d Dept. 2008] ). As the party attacking the validity of the designating petition, petitioners bore the burden of proof (seeMatter of Salka v. Magee , 164 A.D.3d 1084, 1087, 83 N.Y.S.3d 720 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 914, 2018 WL 4102400 [2018] ; Matter of LaMendola v. Mahoney , 49 A.D.2d 798, 798, 373 N.Y.S.2d 234 [4th Dept. 1975] ).

Initially, we note that this proceeding is not moot. Although the primary election date has passed, petitioner was the sole candidate to seek the subject designation, and thus he will be the Democratic Party candidate in the general election if his designating petition is valid (see Election Law § 6–160[2] ; Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections , 98 A.D.3d 622, 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2d Dept. 2012] ). We further note that the requests for affirmative relief made by the Board in its respondent's brief are not properly before us because the Board did not file a notice of appeal from the order (seeCleere v. Frost Ridge Campground, LLC , 155 A.D.3d 1645, 1647, 65 N.Y.S.3d 405 [4th Dept. 2017] ; see alsoMatter of Overbaugh v. Benoit , 172 A.D.3d 1874, 1875 n. 2, 99 N.Y.S.3d 512 [3d Dept. 2019] )

Thus, the court was authorized to make findings with respect to the validity of the signatures on the nominating petition by making its own comparison of those signatures to the signatures on the voter registration rolls (see generally Matter of Powell v. Tendy, 131 A.D.3d 645, 645, 15 N.Y.S.3d 428 [2d Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Felder v. Storobin, 100 A.D.3d 11, 18, 953 N.Y.S.2d 604 [2d Dept. 2012] ; Matter of Hosley v. Valder, 160 A.D.2d 1094, 1096, 553 N.Y.S.2d 251 [3d Dept. 1990] ). Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the court did not err in comparing the signatures contained on petitioner's nominating petition to the signatures contained on the voter registration rolls, rather than merely comparing the names and addresses on the nominating petition with the names and addresses on the voter registration rolls (see generally Election Law § 6–134[5] ; Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 624, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2d Dept. 2012] ). Petitioner's contention that respondents failed to sufficiently plead their allegations of fraud pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) is likewise without merit.

To the extent the appellants argue that the Supreme Court made erroneous determinations as to certain objections, their contentions are without merit (see Matter of Felder v Storobin, 100 AD3d 11, 18-19; cf. Matter of Jaffee v Kelly, 32 AD3d 485, 485). We note that, even if the appellants' contentions had merit and the subject signatures were deducted from the total number of valid signatures on the designating petition, they are insufficient in number to render the designating petition invalid (see Matter of Lord v New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 AD3d 622, 624). DILLON, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

The signatures witnessed by Moore were not rendered invalid by the fact that the Board's records reflected that he had an “inactive” voter status, inasmuch as he was still a registered voter at the time he witnessed the signatures ( see Matter of Bray v. Marsolais, 21 A.D.3d 1143, 1146, 801 N.Y.S.2d 84; see generally Election Law § 5–213 [governing “active” and “inactive” voter status] ), and Election Law § 6–132(2) does not mandate that subscribing witnesses have an “active” voter status. The petitioner's contention that the Supreme Court lacked an evidentiary basis for its determination that Moore lived at the address set forth in his signed Statement of Witness during the time that he procured signatures, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Venditto v. Roth, 110 A.D.3d 908, 975 N.Y.S.2d 59; Matter of Lord v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 98 A.D.3d 622, 623, 949 N.Y.S.2d 507; Matter of Muscarella v. Nassau County Bd. of Elections, 87 A.D.3d 645, 646, 928 N.Y.S.2d 368). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, inter alia, to invalidate the designating petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.