Opinion
92259
August 22, 2002.
Ryan Nobles, New Hartford, appellant-respondent pro se.
John Ciampoli, Albany, for respondent-appellant.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone Jr., J.), entered August 16, 2002 in Albany County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare invalid the designating petition of respondent Ryan Nobles as a Republican Party candidate for the office of Member of New York State Assembly, 115th Assembly District, in the September 10, 2002 primary election.
In July 2002, a designating petition was filed with the State Board of Elections seeking to name respondent Ryan Nobles (hereinafter respondent) as a Republican Party candidate for the public office of Member of the New York State Assembly, 115th Assembly District, in this year's primary election. The office sought by respondent was described on the designating petition as "Assembly District 115." Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 seeking to declare the designating petition invalid because, inter alia, it did not identify the public office that respondent intended to seek. Supreme Court granted petitioner's application, concluding that while the geographic territory was adequately described, the public office was not. This appeal by respondent ensued.
Although petitioner filed a notice of cross appeal, he was not an aggrieved party because the judgment appealed from granted all the relief requested.
It is settled that the name of the public office or party position sought must be clearly set forth on the designating petition (see Election Law § 6-132; see also Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 275 A.D.2d 589, 590; Matter of Parker v. Savago, 143 A.D.2d 439, 441). Describing the public office as "Assembly District 115" is not, in our view, "`sufficiently informative * * * so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confus[ion] or * * * [deception to] the signers, voters or board of elections'" (Matter of Dipple v. Devine, 218 A.D.2d 918, 918, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 704, quoting Matter of Donnelly v. McNab, 83 A.D.2d 896, lv denied 54 N.Y.2d 603), where, as here, more than one title of public office is elected from the designated geographic territory (see Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections,supra at 590-591; Matter of Liepshutz v. Palmateer, 112 A.D.2d 1101, 1102, affd on other grounds 65 N.Y.2d 965; Matter of Jacobson v. Schermerhorn, 104 A.D.2d 534, 535; Matter of Denn v. Mahoney, 64 A.D.2d 1007, 1008). Unlike other cases where an omission of either the geographic territory or title of public office sought could be discerned by recourse to the designating petition as a whole, we do not find that the required information omitted here could be adequately gleaned (compare Matter of Lozano v. Scaringe, 253 A.D.2d 569, 570, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 806; Matter of Dipple v. Devine, supra at 918; Matter of Liepshutz v. Palmateer, supra at 1102; Matter of Korman v. Strohm, 145 Misc.2d 34, 36, affd 153 A.D.2d 539, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 609; Matter of Dotson v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op 40324 [U]; with Matter of Dunlea v. New York State Bd. of Elections, supra at 590-591; Matter of Parker v. Savago, supra at 442; Matter of Jacobson v. Schermerhorn, supra at 535). For these reasons, the designating petition was properly invalidated.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.