From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 28, 1984
63 N.Y.2d 696 (N.Y. 1984)

Summary

In Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson (63 N.Y.2d 696), it was held that an overstatement of more than 1,200 signatures rendered the designating petition invalid.

Summary of this case from Matter of Barrett v. Scaringe

Opinion

Argued August 27, 1984

Decided August 28, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Gerald S. Held, J.

Aaron D. Maslow and Debra Silber for Charles E. Hargett and another, appellants.

Michelle Weston Patterson for Jeanette Nottage and another, appellants.

Alan L. Lebowitz for Anna Jefferson, respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, the petitions to invalidate granted and the petition to validate dismissed.

Anna Jefferson submitted a designating petition for the office of State Senator and she and Stanley E. Clark submitted a designating petition together for positions on the Democratic State Committee. In both instances, the cover sheets accompanying the petitions contained all the information required by the Election Law (§ 6-134, subd 2) except that they overstated the total number of signatures. In the petition for State Senator, the cover sheet indicated a total of 5,074 signatures although it actually contained 3,831 signatures. In the petition for positions on the Democratic Committee, the cover sheet indicated a total of 3,325 signatures although it actually contained 2,083. The discrepancies were said to have been produced when the worker tabulating the signatures on each page failed to clear the calculator before adding the totals together.

The Election Law requires that the cover sheet state the total number of signatures each petition contains (Election Law, § 6-134, subd 2). The requirement is a matter of substance and must be strictly complied with (see Matter of Smith v Mahoney, 60 N.Y.2d 596; Matter of Engert v McNab, 60 N.Y.2d 607; Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 N.Y.2d 772). The candidates' characterization of the overstatements as inadvertent mathematical errors of commission, rather than acts of omission, does not excuse the admitted failure to strictly observe the statutory commands.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Aug 28, 1984
63 N.Y.2d 696 (N.Y. 1984)

In Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson (63 N.Y.2d 696), it was held that an overstatement of more than 1,200 signatures rendered the designating petition invalid.

Summary of this case from Matter of Barrett v. Scaringe

In Hargett, the Court of Appeals reiterated the principle that there must be strict compliance with the requirements of the Election Law, especially section 6-134 thereof regarding designating petitions, and that a petition will be held invalid for noncompliance with said requirements even if the number of signatures offered amply exceeds the minimum required.

Summary of this case from Matter of Fromson v. Lefever
Case details for

Matter of Hargett v. Jefferson

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHARLES E. HARGETT et al., Appellants, v. ANNA V…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Aug 28, 1984

Citations

63 N.Y.2d 696 (N.Y. 1984)
479 N.Y.S.2d 977
468 N.E.2d 1114

Citing Cases

Matter of Barrett v. Scaringe

The degree of error involved, an understatement by one signature, should not be ignored, as two recent…

Scoville v. Cicoria

Election Law § 6-134 (2) requires that the cover sheets state the total number of signatures each designating…