Case Name: In the Matter of Tito Velez et al., Respondents, v. Saul Nieves et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1990-08-23
Citations: 164 A.D.2d 931
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Tito Velez et al., Respondents, v Saul Nieves et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 164
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Tito Velez et al., Respondents, v Saul Nieves et al., Respondents-Appellants, and Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent.

Opinion:
In a proceeding to validate petitions designating Tito Velez as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 11, 1990, for the nomination of that party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly of the 53rd Assembly District for the City of New York and Victor Lopez as a candidate in the same primary for the party position of Male Member of the Democratic State Committee from the 53rd Assembly District, Kings County, respectively, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated August 10, 1990, which granted the application.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find that there were sufficient valid signatures for the Supreme Court to validate the candidates' petitions. Further, there was insufficient proof to establish that the subscribing witnesses did not sign the respective subscribing witness statements on the attested dates. That these statements were dated one day later than the date the signatures were collected does not invalidate the petitions since, contrary to the appellants' contention, there is no requirement in the Election Law that the statement of the subscribing witness be signed on the same day as the signatures are collected.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.