From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bland v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1985
112 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

August 21, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.).


Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application to validate the petition of Joseph M. Parrotta granted, application to invalidate the petition denied, and the Board of Elections is directed to place the name of Joseph M. Parrotta on the appropriate ballot.

The instant proceedings concern applications to invalidate and to validate Joseph M. Parrotta's designating petition as candidate for the Republican nomination for Borough President of the Borough of Brooklyn.

At oral argument before Special Term, the petitioners, seeking to invalidate Parrotta's designating petition, maintained that the petition was invalid because the cover sheets failed to correctly indicate the total number of signatures in the entire petition as required by Election Law § 6-134. Specifically, they claimed that the cover sheets overstated the actual number of signatures contained in the petition by a figure of 45. Joseph M. Parrotta did not dispute that the cover sheet overstated the total number of signatures by approximately 45 signatures. However, even absent a consideration of the above 45 signatures, Parrotta had 6,588 signatures, while the required number of signatures needed to qualify for a position on the ballot was 4,673. Special Term, after finding that there was an overstatement of 45 signatures, granted the application to invalidate the petition on the basis of the Court of Appeals decision in Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson ( 63 N.Y.2d 696).

Special Term erred in invalidating the designating petition. The percentage of overstatement, 68 one hundredths of 1%, is de minimis. Under these circumstances, the strict compliance standard set forth in Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson ( supra) should be deemed satisfied ( see, Matter of Staber v. Fidler, 110 A.D.2d 38; Matter of Fromson v. Lefever, 112 A.D.2d 1064). In light of the foregoing decision, it is not necessary to reach the constitutional issue. Lazer, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Bland v. Board of Elections

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1985
112 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of Bland v. Board of Elections

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOYCE BLAND et al., Respondents, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 21, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 1053 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Rancourt v. Magill

Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the overstatement of the signature totals on the designating petition…

In the Matter of Rachael Rancourt v. Magill

Where, as here, there is no allegation of fraud and there was substantial compliance with the provisions of…