Opinion
April 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that an incorrect statement of the assembly or election districts of a signatory or subscribing witness on a nominating petition is a fatal defect (see, Election Law § 6-140; Matter of Liss v Sadowski, 59 N.Y.2d 635; Higby v Mahoney, 48 N.Y.2d 15) unless the error was caused by confusion due to reapportionment (see, Matter of Sciarra v Donnelly, 34 N.Y.2d 970; Matter of Cox v Wells, 57 A.D.2d 635).
In this case, the Supreme Court struck 43 signatures from a 1993 designating petition for the office of New York Community School Board Member on the ground that it was stated that certain subscribing witnesses and signatories resided in the former election districts which existed prior to the 1992 reapportionment. We agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that these signatures were invalid, since it was not demonstrated that the incorrect election district designations were caused by confusion due to the reapportionment of the prior year. We note that the New York City Board of Elections issued new enrollment books reflecting the new assembly and election districts at least six months prior to the date of the subject nominating petition (cf., Matter of Berger v Acito, 64 A.D.2d 949).
Contrary to the appellant's contention on appeal, "Amendment to 1992 Designating and Independent Petition Rules", issued by the New York City Board of Elections, which provided that old or new election and assembly district designations would be valid, applied only to 1992 elections. The New York City Board of Elections publishes a set of rules annually. Since, without the 43 stricken signatures, the appellant has fewer than the minimum number of valid signatures, the Supreme Court properly removed her name from the ballot (see, Matter of Fuentes v D'Apice, 122 A.D.2d 904). Bracken, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.