Case Name: In the Matter of G. David De Bruin, Respondent, v. Mary R. McGee, Appellant, and Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents. (And Two Other Proceedings.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1976-10-27
Citations: 40 N.Y.2d 909
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of G. David De Bruin, Respondent, v Mary R. McGee, Appellant, and Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents. (And Two Other Proceedings.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
In the Matter of G. David De Bruin, Respondent, v Mary R. McGee, Appellant, and Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents. (And Two Other Proceedings.)
Argued October 27, 1976;
decided October 27, 1976
E. Thomas Boyle for appellants.
Robert A. Lifson for G. David De Bruin respondent.
Howard E. Pachman, County Attorney, for Board of Elections, respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The record discloses that there were 1,617 signatures on the designating petition; 1,500 were required under the statute. It was stipulated at Special Term that 77 signatures were invalid. We conclude that another 150 signatures must be invalidated for omission or error with respect to the election district of subscribing witnesses (cf. Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993). There accordingly were insufficient signatures to validate the petition. We neither reach nor consider the other issues tendered (see Matter of White v McNab, 40 NY2d 912, decided herewith).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.