From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

IN RE PTAK v. ERIE CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 20, 2003
307 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CAE 03-01690

August 20, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mahoney, J., for Notaro, J.), entered August 8, 2003, which invalidated the designating petition of respondent Joseph Hajduk for nomination as a candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Cheektowaga in the Democratic Party primary.

JOSEPH HAJDUK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ELLIS KUSTELL, BUFFALO (CARL B. KUSTELL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

FREDERICK A. WOLF, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ANDREW B. ISENBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Joseph Hajduk (respondent) appeals from an order invalidating his designating petition for nomination as a candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Cheektowaga in the Democratic Party primary to be held on September 9, 2003. Supreme Court properly determined that respondent's designating petition contains signatures that are invalid because the signers listed the village, and not the requisite town, where they reside ( see Election Law 6-130). Respondent attempted to cure the defect pursuant to section 6-134(12) by submitting unsworn statements signed by the Clerk of the Village of Depew and a United States Postal worker stating that certain streets are located within the Town of Cheektowaga. In our view, that section does not afford a cure for the absence of a town or city, but only for the use of a post office address. Even assuming, arguendo, that each of the contested signatures could be cured by "proof that such address is the accepted address of such signer" ( id.), we conclude that the unsworn statements submitted by respondent do not substantially comply with the requirements of section 6-134(12) ( see Matter of Ligammari v Norris, 275 A.D.2d 884), and thus the contested signatures are invalid.

In light of our determination, we do not address petitioner's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

IN RE PTAK v. ERIE CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 20, 2003
307 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

IN RE PTAK v. ERIE CTY. BD. OF ELECTIONS

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF JOHN M. PTAK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. ERIE COUNTY BOARD OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Aug 20, 2003

Citations

307 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
763 N.Y.S.2d 516

Citing Cases

In re Appl. of Cadel v. Suffolk Cty. Bd. of Elect.

Such demonstrates that the State Legislature requires a municipal subdivision and not the less definitive…

In re Bowen v. Ulster County

Initially, respondents agree that three of the challenged signatures are invalid for nontechnical reasons…