Opinion
October 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 22, 1991.)
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Supreme Court validating the designating petition of respondent Zeplowitz. The court found, as did the Board of Elections, that the description of the office as "Council Member" sufficiently informed signers of the petition which office the designee was seeking. We agree.
The description in the petition need only be "sufficiently informative * * * so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections" (Matter of Donnelly v. McNab, 83 A.D.2d 896, lv denied 54 N.Y.2d 603; see also, Matter of Liepshutz v. Palmateer, 112 A.D.2d 1101, affd on other grounds 65 N.Y.2d 965). The designation of "Council Member" is merely a gender-neutral description of the office of "councilman" and does not confuse or deceive the signers of a petition, voters or Board of Elections.