Respondent Kavadas asserts that as such service did not afford adequate notice, the petition should be stricken. In support of this contention, he proffers the Matter of Venuti v. Westchester Board of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482 (2nd Dept. 2007) and Belak v. Rossi, 96 A.D.2d 1011 (3rd Dept. 1983). In Venuti, the petitioner commence the underlying proceeding to invalidate a designating petition of respondent candidate where five signatures in the petition to invalidate were inaccurately identified in the petitioner's objections filed with the Westchester Board of Elections.

Decided August 29, 2007. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 43 AD3d 482. Motions for Leave to Appeal Denied.

Under these circumstances, the petition, inter alia, to validate and its supporting papers gave all parties sufficient notice of the issues pertinent to the petitioners’ claims in this proceeding. The petition, inter alia, to validate sufficiently identified the determination of the BOE that the petitioners seek to challenge, giving the respondents adequate notice, in accord with due process, to prepare a defense (see Matter ofMaster v. Davis, 65 A.D.3d 646, 647, 888 N.Y.S.2d 64 ; Matter ofVenuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied the petition, inter alia, to validate on the ground that the petition failed to sufficiently specify the particular ruling of the BOE that the petitioners are contesting.

Petitioner now appeals. Initially, the five signatures set forth on sheet 5, line 2, sheet 15, line 1 and sheet 61, lines 2, 4 and 5 must be invalidated as these individuals previously or contemporaneously signed the designating petition of Dan Buttermann, a member of the Democratic Party running for the same office (see Election Law § 6–134[3] ; Matter of Ehrlich v. Biamonte, 65 A.D.3d 990, 990, 885 N.Y.S.2d 101 [2009] ; Matter of Venuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30 [2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 804, 842 N.Y.S.2d 780, 874 N.E.2d 747 [2007] ). Supreme Court invalidated those sheets of the designating petition witnessed by subscribing witnesses who had previously either signed or acted as subscribing witnesses on Buttermann's designating petition (see Election Law § 6–132[2] ; Matter of Gartner v. Salerno, 74 A.D.2d 958, 959, 426 N.Y.S.2d 169 [1980], lvs denied 49 N.Y.2d 704, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 404 N.E.2d 1341 [1980] ). Inasmuch as this irregularity implicates the integrity of the subscribing witnesses' statements (see Matter of McGuire v. Gamache, 5 N.Y.3d 444, 448, 806 N.Y.S.2d 138, 840 N.E.2d 107 [2005] )

This appeal from the final order brings up for review the findings of fact contained in the 2016 decision (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ; Matter ofVenuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 483, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30 [2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 804, 842 N.Y.S.2d 780, 874 N.E.2d 747 [2007] ). We first address plaintiff's attack upon Supreme Court's valuation of the property.

The petition to invalidate the designating petition incorporated the objections and specifications of objections filed with the Board, and the respondent was served with the aggrieved candidate's specifications of objections on the distinct ground she raised as to the signatures at issue several days before the matter was briefed and heard. As such, the respondent had adequate notice of the grounds for objecting to the signatures at issue to enable him to prepare his defense (see Matter of Venuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30 ; Matter of Brotherton v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 33 A.D.3d 944, 945, 824 N.Y.S.2d 322 ; cf. Matter of Suarez v. Sadowski, 48 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 421 N.Y.S.2d 50, 396 N.E.2d 198 ; Matter of Levitt v. Mahoney, 133 A.D.2d 516, 516, 520 N.Y.S.2d 290 ; Matter of Belak v. Rossi, 96 A.D.2d 1011, 1012, 467 N.Y.S.2d 100 ). Since it is undisputed that the signatures at issue were invalid because they belonged to individuals not registered to vote in the specific legislative district, there are insufficient remaining valid signatures for the respondent to remain on the ballot.

Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Nassau County Board of Elections is directed to place the name of Judi R. Bosworth on the appropriate ballot. A candidate whose designating petition is being challenged has the right to be "sufficiently or fairly apprised of which signatures were being challenged and the grounds for those challenges" ( Matter of Romaine v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 65 AD3d 993, 994-995; see Matter of O'Toole v D'Apice, 112 AD2d 1078; Matter of Belak v Rossi, 96 AD2d 1011, 1011-1012; cf. Matter of Venuti v Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 AD3d 482, 484). The Supreme Court deprived Judi R. Bosworth of the required notice when it invalidated six signatures on grounds that had not been raised by the petitioner.

ORDERED that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Nassau County Board of elections is directed to place the name of Judi R. Bosworth on the appropriate ballot. A candidate whose designating petition is being challenged has the right to be “sufficiently or fairly apprised of which signatures were being challenged and the grounds for those challenges” ( Matter of Romaine v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 65 A.D.3d 993, 994–995, 884 N.Y.S.2d 770; see Matter of O'Toole v. D'Apice, 112 A.D.2d 1078, 1078, 493 N.Y.S.2d 56; Matter of Belak v. Rossi, 96 A.D.2d 1011, 1011–1012, 467 N.Y.S.2d 100; cf. Matter of Venuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30). The Supreme Court deprived Judi R. Bosworth of the required notice when it invalidated six signatures on grounds that had not been raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court erred in invalidating five signatures on the ground that the date written by the notary was illegible, where evidence submitted at the hearing made it clear that the petition was notarized on July 8, 2011. Technical defects in the notarization of a document should not invalidate the official acts of a notary public ( see Matter of Arcuri v. Hojnacki, 12 Misc.3d 1192[A], 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 51538[U], 2006 WL 2263173 [2006] ).

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the petitioner's contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly determined that the signatures of several voters on his designating petition were invalid since those voters previously had *466 signed the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office ( see Election Law § 6–134[3]; Matter of Ehrlich v. Biamonte, 65 A.D.3d 990, 885 N.Y.S.2d 101; Matter of Venuti v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 A.D.3d 482, 484, 842 N.Y.S.2d 30; Matter of Rabadi v. Galan, 307 A.D.2d 1014, 763 N.Y.S.2d 503). Consequently, the petitioner's designating petition did not contain the required number of valid signatures ( see Election Law § 6–136[2]; Matter of Ehrlich v. Biamonte, 65 A.D.3d at 990, 885 N.Y.S.2d 101; Matter of James v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 21 A.D.3d 507, 799 N.Y.S.2d 751).

ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the petitioner's contention on appeal, the Supreme Court properly determined that the signatures of several voters on his designating petition were invalid since those voters previously had signed the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office (see Election Law § 6-134[3]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d 990; Matter of Venuti v Westchester County Bd. of Elections, 43 AD3d 482, 484; Matter of Rabadi v Galan, 307 AD2d 1014). Consequently, the petitioner's designating petition did not contain the required number of valid signatures (see Election Law § 6-136[2]; Matter of Ehrlich v Biamonte, 65 AD3d at 990; Matter of James v New York City Bd. of Elections, 21 AD3d 507).