Alamo v. Black

410 N.E.2d 1228, 51 N.Y.2d 716, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2582
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 28, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 410 N.E.2d 1228 (Alamo v. Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alamo v. Black, 410 N.E.2d 1228, 51 N.Y.2d 716, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2582 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

[717]*717OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Special Term reinstated.

The "witness statement” in the designating petitions failed to include a declaration that the signatories had subscribed their names on the dates indicated in the spaces adjacent to their signatures, notwithstanding the clear language of section 6-132 of the Election Law requiring such a declaration. While section 6-132 by its terms permits "substantial compliance” with the statutorily prescribed format for designating petitions, it does not permit deviations from the statutorily prescribed content of such petitions (cf. Matter of Ruiz v Sachs, 43 NY2d 894).

The omission of the required declaration was a substantive departure from the mandates of the statute and not a mere error in form. Absent a declaration that the signatures had been obtained on the dates indicated, the petitions were deficient in much the same manner as they would have been had the witnesses failed to aver that the signatories had signed in their presence. In both cases, there is a fatal failure to include in the petition an element which the Legislature has deemed to be essential.

The substantive requirements of section 6-132 "are designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in designation petitions” (Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993, 994). Were we to permit deviation from these requirements in this case, we would be taking the first step toward unraveling the carefully conceived legislative scheme.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order reversed, without costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court, Bronx County, reinstated in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Schildt v. Campanella
2025 NY Slip Op 02819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Schildt v. Campanella
2025 NY Slip Op 50682(U) (New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, 2025)
Matter of Ferreyra v. Arroyo
2020 NY Slip Op 2901 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Avella v. Johnson
142 A.D.3d 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of McCormack v. Jablonski
132 A.D.3d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
DADEY, JR., THOMAS v. v. CZARNY, DUSTIN M.
132 A.D.3d 1427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Grasso v. Cleveland
132 A.D.3d 1059 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
BONIELLO, DAVID G. v. NIAGARA COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Boniello v. Niagara County Board of Elections
131 A.D.3d 806 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Stevens v. Collins
120 A.D.3d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
McGuire v. Gamache
22 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Malone v. Tutunjian
152 Misc. 2d 153 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Pisacane v. King
175 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Purtell v. Kuczek
112 A.D.2d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Barrett v. Scaringe
112 A.D.2d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Burgess v. D'Apice
112 A.D.2d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Lugo v. Board of Elections
123 Misc. 2d 764 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
McGoey v. Black
123 Misc. 2d 508 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Rhodes v. Salerno
90 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Matter of Frome v. Bd. of Elections of Nassau County
440 N.E.2d 1325 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 N.E.2d 1228, 51 N.Y.2d 716, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamo-v-black-ny-1980.