Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioners' independent nominating petitions were invalidated because, inter alia, 78 of the 227 persons who signed the petitions failed to indicate their election district as required by Election Law § 6-130. Although the petitioners concede that the invalidation of these 78 signatures renders the number of valid signatures on their petitions below the minimum number needed, they argue on appeal that the defect should not be fatal, as the election district of the signers is readily ascertainable through computer and other voting records. Further, citing to certain recent decisions of this Court (see, e.g., Matter of Barrett v. Brodsky, 196 A.D.2d 603; Matter of Goodstein v. Ross, 196 A.D.2d 615), the petitioners argue that the Election Reform Act of 1992 (L 1992, ch 79) liberalized construction of the Election Law. However, Election Law § 6-130, unlike the section construed in the cases cited by the petitioner (Election Law § 6-132), was not amended by the Election Reform Act of 1992 and failure to adhere to its mandates is fatal (see, Matter of Harfmann v. Sachs, 138 A.D.2d 551; Matter of Faulstitch v. Kasper, 122 A.D.2d 903). Thus, the consolidated proceedings to validate the petitions were properly dismissed. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.