Opinion
October 7, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with Special Term insofar as it found that the Concerned Citizens Against LILCO Party (hereinafter Concerned Citizens), an independent body, did not violate Election Law § 6-138 (3) when it selected its name, despite the claim of similarity to Ratepayers Against LILCO, Inc. (hereinafter Ratepayers), which is also an independent body and not an existing party as those terms are defined by Election Law § 1-104 (12) and (3), respectively. On the record before us, it appears that the candidate representing the Concerned Citizens filed her nominating petition one full day before the Ratepayers' candidate did (cf. Carey v Chiavaroli, 97 A.D.2d 981). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.