Opinion
August 25, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We find that the appellants have not demonstrated conduct on the part of the candidate sufficient to rise to the level of fraud required to invalidate the petition despite the fact that there was a sufficient number of valid signatures (see, Matter of Ruiz v. McKenna, 40 N.Y.2d 815, 816; cf., Matter of Bynoe v Board of Elections, 164 A.D.2d 929).
The appellants contend that the candidate's designating petition should be invalidated since the candidate instructed a subscribing witness to procure signatures but not to insert the dates on which the signatories signed. The appellants argue that the dates were improperly inserted after the subscribing witness had signed her witness's statements. The subscribing witness initialed the sheets after the dates were inserted. Thus, Election Law § 6-134 (12) was complied with.
We have reviewed the remaining instances cited by the appellants as evidence that the petition should be invalidated on the ground of fraud and find that they are without merit (see, Matter of Ruiz v. McKenna, supra). Accordingly, the petition was not permeated with fraud (cf., Matter of Flower v. D'Apice, 104 A.D.2d 578, affd 63 N.Y.2d 715). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.