Case Name: In the Matter of John M. Plunkett, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Erie, Respondents, and Vincent J. Sorrentino, as Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party, et al., Respondents-Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1990-08-30
Citations: 76 N.Y.2d 848
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of John M. Plunkett, Appellant-Respondent, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Erie, Respondents, and Vincent J. Sorrentino, as Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 848–850

Head Matter:
In the Matter of John M. Plunkett, Appellant-Respondent, v Edward J. Mahoney et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Erie, Respondents, and Vincent J. Sorrentino, as Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Argued August 29,1990;
decided August 30, 1990
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
John M. Plunkett, pro se, and C. Russell Kelleran, Jr., for John M. Plunkett, appellant-respondent.
Dennis E. Ward for respondents-appellants.
Patrick F. NeMoyer, County Attorney, for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order modified, without costs, by denying the cross petition for the reasons stated in the dissenting in part memorandum by Justices Boomer and Lowery at the Appellate Division (— AD2d —) and, as so modified, affirmed. We add only that failure to timely file a certificate of authorization, which was required in this instance in order for there to be a valid designating petition (Election Law §6-120 [3]), constituted a "fatal defect" under Election Law § 1-106 (2). Moreover, because the petition is void under the statute, the defect cannot be considered merely "technical" (see, Matter of Harden v Board of Elections, 74 NY2d 796).
Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Bellacosa. Judge Hancock, Jr., dissents in part and votes to affirm in a memorandum in which Judge Titone concurs.