Summary
In Braxton, the Court of Appeals definitively held that the failure to bind and consecutively number a two-page petition constituted a fatal defect as to content, not merely of form. This ruling has been repeatedly followed despite the sometimes harsh consequences (see, e.g, Matter of Staber v. Fidler, 110 A.D.2d 38, affd 65 N.Y.2d 529; O'Connor v. McGivney, 144 Misc.2d 396; Matter of Holster v. Matthews, 185 A.D.2d 959, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 755).
Summary of this case from Mtr. of Farrell v. SunderlandOpinion
Submitted August 27, 1984
Decided August 28, 1984
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Julian F. Kubiniec, J.
Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., County Attorney ( Roger D. Avent of counsel), for appellants.
James E. Crotty for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the petition to validate dismissed. The requirements of subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law that the sheets of a designating petition be bound together in one or more volumes and the sheets in each volume be numbered consecutively at the foot of each sheet are requirements of content rather than form (see Matter of Frome v Board of Elections, 57 N.Y.2d 741; Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 N.Y.2d 772; cf. Matter of Sheehan v Scaringe, 60 N.Y.2d 795). Neither sheet of the petition was numbered, the sheets were not bound together, and neither sheet by itself contained a sufficient number of signatures to qualify petitioner as a candidate for County Committeeman. Petitioner's designating petition was, therefore, properly invalidated by the Board of Elections.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.