Opinion
March 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The hearing court properly refused to validate all of the signatures on sheet number 161 of the designating petition where the subscribing witness had attested that the sheet contained 9 signatures when, in fact, it contained 10 signatures. Inasmuch as the requirement of Election Law § 6-132 that the subscribing witness make a signed statement as to the total number of signatures on the petition sheet to which it is appended is "[e]ssential to the integrity of the petition process" (Matter of Jonas v. Velez, 65 N.Y.2d 954, 955) and the record is barren of proof regarding what occasioned the irregularity in this subscribing witness's statement, the signatures set forth on this petition sheet must be deemed invalid.
Furthermore, the Board of Elections invalidation of 14 other signatures on the ground that the voters had failed to set forth their correct election district, Assembly district or residence address from which they were registered to vote was properly upheld. A failure to comply with the statutory requirement that the signer must provide, inter alia, "his residence address, ward (if any), election district, town or city" (Election Law § 6-130) and, "[i]n the city of New York * * * the assembly district in which the signer resides" (Election Law § 6-130) has been held to be fatal since the statutory provisions requiring such information must be strictly construed (Matter of Rutherford v. Jones, 128 A.D.2d 978; Matter of Faulstitch v Kasper, 122 A.D.2d 903; Matter of Liepshutz v. Palmateer, 112 A.D.2d 1101, affd 65 N.Y.2d 965).
Since the invalidation of the signatures noted above resulted in an insufficient number of valid signatures, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this proceeding to validate the subject designating petition. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.