Opinion
September 8, 1955.
We recognize that the better and more precise practice would be that required by the orders appealed from. But testing the petitions for legal sufficiency we believe that they are in substantial compliance with the Election Law and the rules of the County Committee. We apprehend no danger of confusion or fraud in allowing the petitions to stand. Orders reversed, the motions denied and the petitions dismissed.
Concur — Peck, P.J., Breitel and Rabin, JJ.; Cohn and Botein, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm for the reasons set forth at Special Term. [ 208 Misc. 728.]