Opinion
September 27, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Livingston County, Fritsch, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, O'Donnell and Schnepp, JJ. (Decision entered Aug. 22, 1985.)
Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioners, having filed objections to the designating petition of respondent candidates, clearly have standing to judicially challenge the sufficiency of the petition (Election Law § 16-102; § 6-154 [2]). That the petition contains names of candidates for public offices and party positions is of no moment. The rights of both public office and party position candidates are "inextricably interwoven" since the objections raised clearly relate to and affect all of the candidates (Matter of McGoey v Black, 100 A.D.2d 635, 636).
Election Law § 6-134 (2) requires that the cover sheets state the total number of signatures each designating petition contains. This requirement is "a matter of substance and must be strictly complied with" (Matter of Hargett v Jefferson, 63 N.Y.2d 696, 698). Here, the cover sheet indicates that the petition contains 2,021 signatures, whereas the actual number of signatures is 1,923. This overstatement does not strictly comply with Election Law § 6-134 (2) and the entire designating petition is invalid (Matter of Hargett v Jefferson, supra).
This determination is without prejudice to respondents Jackson and Johnson to seek leave of the court for the opportunity to ballot pursuant to Election Law § 6-164 (see, Matter of Ramos v Alpert, 41 A.D.2d 1012, affd 32 N.Y.2d 903; Matter of Brown v Ulster County Bd. of Elections, 100 Misc.2d 570, 574).