Jonas v. Velez

• Decision Date: 28 August 1985
• Citation: 493 N.Y.S.2d 1019,483 N.E.2d 1151,65 N.Y.2d 954
• Parties: , 483 N.E.2d 1151 In the Matter of Lillian JONAS et al., Appellants, v. Otto VELEZ et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 1019

493 N.Y.S.2d 1019

65 N.Y.2d 954, 483 N.E.2d 1151

In the Matter of Lillian JONAS et al., Appellants, v. Otto VELEZ et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Aug. 28, 1985.

John C. Klotz and Kathryn E. Freed, New York City, for appellants.

Saul Rudes, New York City, for Seymour Friedman, respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, without costs.

Essential to the integrity of the petition process is the subscribing witness's statement authorized by Election Law § 6-132 and particularly that portion of it which contains the total number of signatures on the petition sheet to which it is appended. We have, therefore, consistently held that alteration of the statement which is unexplained and uninitialed will result in the invalidation of the petition sheet (Matter of Sheldon v. Sperber, 45 N.Y.2d 788, 409 N.Y.S.2d 1, 381 N.E.2d 159; Matter of Klemann v. Acito, 45 N.Y.2d 796, 409 N.Y.S.2d 9, 381 N.E.2d 182, affg. 64 A.D.2d 952, 408 N.Y.S.2d 563; Matter of Nobles v. Grant, 41 N.Y.2d 1048, 396 N.Y.S.2d 180, 364 N.E.2d 844, affg. 57 A.D.2d 600, 394 N.Y.S.2d 20). The fact that the alterations here resulted in the manifestation of correct information, or that the numbers inserted were smaller, rather than larger, as in Matter of Berger v. Acito, 64 A.D.2d 949, 408 N.Y.S.2d 564, lv. denied 45 N.Y.2d 707, 409 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 381 N.E.2d 167), does not remedy the legal deficiency (see, Matter of White v. McNab, 40 N.Y.2d 912, 913, 389 N.Y.S.2d 359, 357 N.E.2d 1014). It does not unduly burden the designating petition process to require that a subscribing witness whose statement has been changed initial the change and explain the reason for it (see, Matter of Roman v. Sharpe, 42 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 398 N.Y.S.2d 410, 368 N.E.2d 33; cf. Matter of Grancio v. Coveney, 60 N.Y.2d 608, 611, 467 N.Y.S.2d 195, 454 N.E.2d 535).

WACHTLER, C.J., and JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE, JJ., concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.