The Supreme Court properly found that the candidates cured the defects in their original designating petition within the time allowed by the Election Law. The regulations promulgated pursuant to Election Law § 6–134(2) provide, inter alia, that the sheets of a designating "petition shall be numbered sequentially at the foot of each sheet" ( 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [a] ), and "[a]ny two or more petition sheets shall be securely fastened together by any means which will hold the pages together in numerical order" ( 9 NYCRR 6215.1 [c] ). However, Election Law § 6–134(2) provides that the regulations promulgated thereunder for the submission of petitions "shall be no more restrictive than is reasonably necessary for the processing of such petitions by the board of elections" (see 9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a]; Matter of Zulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d 656, 658, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; Matter of Pearse v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 10 A.D.3d 461, 462, 781 N.Y.S.2d 166 ). Election Law § 6–134(2) further provides that, when a board of elections determines that a designating petition does not comply with the regulations, the candidate or candidates must be notified and afforded three business days in which to cure the defect (see 9 NYCRR 6215.7 [a]-[d] ). Here, by filing a complete and exact copy of the original designating petition with numbered and stapled pages within three days of the Board's determination that the designating petition was invalid, the candidates cured the defects of the original designating petition (see Matter of Zulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d at 659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ; see also Matter of Bonnett v. Miner, 275 A.D.2d 585, 586–587, 713 N.Y.S.2d 87 ; Matter of May v. Daly, 254 A.D.2d 688, 689, 678 N.Y.S.2d 415 ).
Ct. 2008] [court reinstated designating petitions invalidated by the Board due to minor cover sheet errors]). Moreover, the court is cognizant that the provisions of Election Law § 6-134 "shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud" (Election Law § 6-134 [10] [emphasis added]) in order to avoid the disenfranchisement of voters (see also 9 NYCRR 6215.6 [a] [". . . these rules shall be liberally construed and technical defects shall be disregarded where there has been substantial compliance and where a strict construction is not required for the prevention of fraud" [emphasis added]; Matter of Zulauf v Martin, 131 AD3d 656 [2d Dept 2015]; Matter of Pearse, 10 AD3d at 462). Here, as noted above, petitioner's designating petition is comprised of multiple petition volumes, three of which (KG2100506, NY2102819 and NY2102839), were bound together with other volumes (that were separately stapled and numbered) when they were originally filed with the Board on March 25, 2021, the last day to file designating petitions, along with three separate cover sheets.
It is common knowledge that a Councilperson is a member of the Town Board. See, Zulauf v.Martin, 131 A.D.3d 656; 2015.
The petitioner's second amended cover sheet was not filed within the requisite three-day statutory period and, thus, could not cure the defects. The petitioner's failure to cure the defects within the statutory period is a ground for invalidation of the designating petition (see Matter of Zulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d 656, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
The appellant was notified by the Board of Elections in the City of New York (hereinafter the Board), by letter dated March 24, 2020, that the cover sheet of his designating petition failed to comply with the New York State Board of Elections Regulations or the Board's rules and he was given the opportunity to cure (see Election Law § 6–134[2] ; 9 NYCRR 6215.7 ). Since the appellant failed to commence this proceeding on or before April 3, 2020, the last day to do so, the appellant's commencement of this proceeding, inter alia, to validate the designating petition was untimely (see Election Law § 16–102[2] ; Matter of Gangemi v. Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 109 A.D.3d 541, 542, 970 N.Y.S.2d 470 ; see generally Matter ofZulauf v. Martin, 131 A.D.3d 656, 658–659, 15 N.Y.S.3d 420 ). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the statute of limitations for commencing this Election Law article 16 proceeding was not tolled by a provision of Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 202.