Opinion
April 18, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
There is no merit to Barnett's contention that an individual's participation at a caucus constitutes an act which will disqualify that individual from witnessing signatures on a nominating petition governed by Election Law article 6 for the same office from another party (see, Matter of Kendall v Jablonski, 84 A.D.2d 586; but see, Matter of Lynch v. Huested, 118 A.D.2d 674 , concerning nominations for village offices under Election Law art 15). Accordingly, nisi prius did not err in precluding the admission of evidence which Barnett alleged would have proven that some of the authenticating witnesses for Blydenburgh's petitions on the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO line had previously voted in the Republican caucus for the same office.
Matter No. 1, which was commenced pursuant to General Business Law § 133, was properly dismissed as it was not commenced by an aggrieved candidate or by the chairman of any party committee or independent body, but by Ratepayers Against LILCO, Inc. We agree with the finding at nisi prius that Ratepayers Against LILCO, Inc., did not have standing to bring the action (see, Election Law § 16-104).
We have considered the issue raised on the cross appeal and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.