Opinion
Argued October 27, 1976
Decided October 27, 1976
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, HENRY TASKER, J.
E. Thomas Boyle for appellant.
Nicholas Vincent Campasano for petitioner-respondent.
Howard E. Pachman, County Attorney, for Board of Elections, respondent.
MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The designating petition contained 1,925 signatures; 1,349 were required to validate. The deletion of 468 signatures at Special Term is not challenged on appeal. We conclude that another 45 must be stricken for error on the part of a subscribing witness with respect to his election district (cf. Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 N.Y.2d 993). From the record supplemented by representations on oral argument we have also concluded that an additional 200 signatures must be eliminated because of undated and uninitialed alterations in two material categories — number of signatures witnessed and errors in assembly and election districts (Matter of Marcatante v Lundy, 3 N.Y.2d 913). The legal deficiencies are not remedied by the circumstance that it is agreed that each alteration resulted in manifestation of correct information. Accordingly, there remain insufficient signatures to validate the petition. We neither reach nor consider any other issue.
Without intending to suggest a contrary view, we note that it was not necessary to our decision in Matter of Goodman v Board of Elections ( 31 N.Y.2d 763) that signatures taken by a witness whose name had appeared on another similar petition be stricken.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.