Case Name: In the Matter of Ferdinand L. Vari, Respondent, v. Albert T. Hayduk et al., Constituting the Board of Elections, Respondents, and Lewis H. Waugh et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1977-08-23
Citations: 59 A.D.2d 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Ferdinand L. Vari, Respondent, v Albert T. Hayduk et al., Constituting the Board of Elections, Respondents, and Lewis H. Waugh et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Ferdinand L. Vari, Respondent, v Albert T. Hayduk et al., Constituting the Board of Elections, Respondents, and Lewis H. Waugh et al., Appellants.

Opinion:
In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 8, 1977 for the public offices of Comptroller and Council Members (three) for the City of Mount Vernon, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 3, 1977, which granted the application and enjoined the board of elections from placing appellants' names on the appropriate ballot. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, proceeding dismissed, and the board of elections is directed to place appellants' names upon the appropriate ballot. No findings of fact were presented for review. Among the signatures invalidated by Special Term were 228 signatures on 13 sheets, in which the witness' Assembly District had been omitted, and 277 signatures on 16 sheets in which the witness' Assembly District at the time of his last registration had been omitted. In all these instances the address of the witness' residence within the City of Mount Vernon had been stated. In view of the fact that the entire City of Mount Vernon lies within the 88th Assembly District (as Special Term recognized), a fact of which this court also takes judicial notice, the failure to add the Assembly District to the place of residence has no substantial effect; nor may it be deemed deceptive or fraudulent. The necessary information required under section 135 of the Election Law has been supplied. Matter of Rutter v Coveney (38 NY2d 993) is inapposite on these facts. In Matter of Rosen v McNab (25 NY2d 798, 799) the court stated: "substantial compliance with the Election Law is sufficient. The People's will should not be fettered by technicalities requiring precise compliance." Gulotta, P. J., Damiani, Shapiro, Mollen and O'Connor, JJ., concur.