From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cronk v. Ferencsik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1992
181 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 12, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

"[T]he requirement of Election Law § 6-132 that the subscribing witness make a signed statement as to the total number of signatures on the petition sheet to which [the statement] is appended is `[e]ssential to the integrity of the petition process'" (Matter of Harfmann v Sachs, 138 A.D.2d 550, quoting Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 N.Y.2d 954, 955). Election Law § 15-108, which provides for the nomination of candidates for elective village offices, contains a provision almost identical to that provision of Election Law § 6-132. The requirement that the witness's signed statement include the number of signatures on the petition sheet was clearly not satisfied in this case. Therefore, the court properly invalidated the petition. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Cronk v. Ferencsik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 1992
181 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Cronk v. Ferencsik

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KIRK R. CRONK, Respondent, v. CHRIS FERENCSIK et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 12, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 234

Citing Cases

Rancourt v. Kennedy

Among other things, the statute requires a subscribing witness to set forth the total number of signatures on…

In the Matter of Constance M. Kepert v. Tullo

Thus, because the stating of the number of signatures witnessed “is a matter of the legislatively mandated…