The Resolution of Election Disputes: Legal Principles that Control Election Challenges 479 N.Y.S.2d 281 104 A.D.2d 578, 479 N.Y.S.2d 281 (Cite as: 104 A.D.2d 578, 479 N.Y.S.2d 281) Page 1 1984, which, after a hearing, denied the application. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. In the Matter of Robert E. FLOWER et al., Appellants, v. Antonia D'APICE et al., constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Westchester, et al., Respondents. Sept. 5, 1984. Proceeding was brought to invalidate petition designating candidate in primary election. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, Martin, J., entered order denying application, and an appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that: (1) candidate's fraudulent acts in knowingly obtaining invalid signatures on designating petition warranted striking his name from ballot, and (2) fraud and irregularity so permeated designating petition as a whole as to call for its invalidation. Reversed and application granted. West Headnotes [1] Elections 158 144k158 Most Cited Cases Candidate's fraudulent acts in knowingly obtaining invalid signatures on designating petition warranted striking his name from ballot. [2] Elections 158 144k158 Most Cited Cases Fraud and irregularity so permeated designating petition as a whole as to call for its invalidation. **281 Before TITONE, J.P., and LAZER, MANGANO and GIBBONS, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT. *578 In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Daniel Sadofsky as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 11, 1984 for the public office of County Legislator, 1st County Legislative District (unexpired term), the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 15, 216 Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, application granted and the board of elections is directed to remove the name of Daniel Sadofsky from the appropriate ballot. [1] Candidate Sadofsky signed, as subscribing witness, a page of the designating petition on which appeared the signature of one Robert Gruber. However, during the hearing at Special Term, Sadofsky stipulated "that the name of Robert Gruber was not placed upon the petition by Robert Gruber". In addition, Sadofsky testified that he knowingly obtained some signatures which were invalid, and admitted that, in certain instances, he did not ask the putative signatories to identify themselves before obtaining their signatures. Since Sadofsky is a candidate, his fraudulent acts warrant that his name be stricken from the ballot (see Matter of Cullen v. Power, 14 N.Y.2d 760, 250 N.Y.S.2d 801, 199 N.E.2d 836; Matter of Layden v. Gargiulo, 77 A.D.2d 933, 431 N.Y.S.2d 118; Matter of Giaccio v. Cappa, NYLJ, May 26, 1960, p. 15, col. 6, affd. 10 A.D.2d 998, 204 N.Y.S.2d 104). **282 [2] Moreover, we also find that fraud and irregularity so permeated the designating petition as a whole as to call for its invalidation (cf. Matter of Proskin v. May, 40 N.Y.2d 829, 387 N.Y.S.2d 564, 355 N.E.2d 793). Two persons testified that, although their names appear as signatories to the petition, they had never signed it. In addition, there appeared on the petition the purported signature of a person who was deceased at the time the signature was allegedly obtained, and that of a person whose mother testified he had been in California at the time of the alleged signing. In addition, one of the subscribing witnesses to the designating petition testified at the hearing that she had failed to fully complete the subscribing witness statements for the three pages to which she had attested, and, in effect, that the statements were completed *579 by someone else at a later date. Finally, another of the subscribing witnesses admittedly failed to ask the signatories to identify themselves as the persons whose names they were signing. 104 A.D.2d 578, 479 N.Y.S.2d 281 END OF DOCUMENT © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.