- 15 - Nos. 56 & 58 is the majority that engages in speculating that petitioner could have safely designated an agent, a process which would have required an in-person signature (see 9 NYCRR 6215.8; 9 NYCRR § 6204.1 [c] [requiring designation of an agent to receive notices and determinations related to an objection to be in writing]); found a notary with the capability of notarizing her documents electronically during a pandemic; and safely passed off signed documents to her agent—all after the Appellate Division made a specific factual finding that the sole reason for the filing delay was petitioner’s illness and self-quarantine. As Settineri instructs, the conflicting provisions of the Election Law must give way in the face of the impossibility of petitioner’s ability to safely file the relevant documents within the truncated timeframe (see 197 AD2d at 728 [Balletta, J. dissenting], affd 82 NY2d at 816). Any possibility that petitioner may have been able to meet the deadline had other steps been taken is purely speculative and warrants no consideration (see id.). IV. The Appellate Division issued a thoughtful and narrow ruling taking into account the statutory requirements, case law and petitioner’s compliance with state governmental quarantine guidance during the petitioning and filing period. As the record establishes, the belated filing of both documents was not a fatal defect based on “careless or inadvertent failure to follow the mandate of statute and case law” (Hutson, 54 NY2d at 774). To the contrary, respondent, sick with symptoms and aware of her duty as a member of the New York City community and an incumbent representative of her district, diligently sought to avoid spreading the virus and exposing voters and Board of Election staff by self- 15 -