Opinion
August 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered August 8, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment entered August 9, 1991, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment dated August 21, 1991, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment dated August 21, 1991, is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the Westchester County Board of Elections is directed to restore the names of Garfield Dorsey, Irwin Hoskins, Luther V. Garrison, Theodore Muckelvaney, Jerry Barbour, Doris E. Miaranda Pemberton, Linda Blake, John A. Palladino, John P. Palladino, Peter Ziccardi, Dominick Iannacone, Dolores Kahn, and William Kahn, to the appropriate ballots for the party positions of Members of the Democratic County Committee of Westchester County.
The appeal from the order entered August 8, 1991, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of orders and judgments in the proceedings (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order entered August 8, 1991, are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the orders and judgments (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The Supreme Court found that some but not all of the designating petitions which omitted "City of Yonkers" following the candidates' addresses were invalid. We disagree with the invalidation. The candidates' addresses listed on the petitions were sufficient to identify the candidates to the signers. We conclude that there was substantial compliance with Election Law § 6-132 (see, Price v Letteri, 89 A.D.2d 976; Tsakos v Erie County Bd. of Elections, 83 A.D.2d 983; Matter of Brewster v Cayuga County Bd. of Elections, 83 A.D.2d 983).
Furthermore, on the designating petitions the words "with respect to Public Office" had been unnecessarily printed after the words "I do hereby appoint". In each petition, the language was stricken and initialed by the witness. However, the alteration was not dated. The alteration was not material, in that it dealt with form and not substance, and the absence of the date did not invalidate the petitions (see, Matter of Jonas v Velez, 65 N.Y.2d 954; Matter of Sheehan v Scaringe, 154 A.D.2d 832; Matter of Berger v Acito, 64 A.D.2d 949; Matter of Moczydlowski v Westall, 275 App. Div. 1000).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the candidates' remaining contentions. The contentions raised by Olivia King and her co-petitioners on their appeals are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.