![]() |
![]() |
(CITE AS: 65 N.Y.2D 954, 483 N.E.2D 1151, 493 N.Y.S.2D 1019) In the Matter of Lillian JONAS et al., Appellants, v. Otto VELEZ et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. Aug. 28, 1985. Application was brought to invalidate a petition sheet desig nating a candidate for the public office of borough president in the Democractic Party primary election. The Supreme Court, New York County, Martin Evans, J., granted the application to in validate the petition and directed the board of elections to strike the candidate's name from the ballot. Appeal was brought. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed, deeming the designating petition valid. Petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals held that alteration of subscribing wit ness' statement, which was unexplained and uninitialed, invali dated the petition sheet, despite fact that alterations resulted in corect information and despite fact that numbers inserted were smaller, rather than larger, since it does not unduly burden designating petition process to rquire that a subscribing witness whose statement has been changed initial the change and explain the reason for it. Order of the Appellate Division reversed. JOHN C. KLOTZ and Kathryn E. Freed, New York City, for appellants. Saul Rudes, New York City, for Seymour Friedman, respondents. OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, without costs. Essential to the integrity of the petition process is the subscribing witness's statement authorized by Election Law '6-132 and particularly that portion of it which contains the total number of signatures on the petition sheet to which it is append ed. We have, therefore, consistently held that alteration of the statement which is unexplained and uninitialed will result in the invalidation of the petition sheet (Matter of Sheldon v. Sperber, 45 N.Y.2d 788, 409 N.Y.S.2d 1, 381 N.E.2d 159; Matter of Klemann v. Acito, 45 N.Y.2d 796, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 381 N.E.2d 182, affg. 64 A.D.2d 952, 408 N.Y.S.2d 563; Matter of Nobles v. Grant, 41 N.Y.2d 1048, 396 N.Y.S.2d 180, 364 N.E.2d 844, affg. 57 A.D.2d 600, 394 N.Y.S.2d 20). The fact that the alterations here re sulted in the manifestation of correct information, or that the numbers inserted were smaller, rather than larger, as in Matter of Berger v. Acito, 64 A.D.2d 949, 408 N.Y.S.2d 564, lv. denied 45 N.Y.2d 707, 409 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 381 N.E.2d 167), does not remedy the legal deficiency (see, Matter of White v. McNab, 40 N.Y.2d 912, 913, 389 N.Y.S.2d 359, 357 N.E.2d 1014). It does not unduly burden the designating petition process to require that a subscribing witness whose statement has been changed initial the change and explain the reason for it (see, Matter of Roman v. Sharpe, 42 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 398 N.Y.S.2d 410, 368 N.E.2d 33; cf. Matter of Granciov. Coveney, 60 N.Y.2d 608, 611, 467 N.Y.S.2d 195, 454 N.E2d 535). WACHTLER, C.J., and JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE, JJ., concur in memorandum. Order reversed, etc.
![]() |
![]() |