-7- Nos. 56 & 58 The Board, presumably also working under extraordinary conditions resulting from the pandemic, took until April 15 to alert Ms. Seawright to the asserted deficiencies. At that point, the Board believed the errors to be fatal and thus not subject to cure under 9 NYCRR 6215.7 (d), which states that a candidate “may, within three business days of the date of a determination that the petition does not comply with these regulations, cure the violation of these regulations.” On April 21, the Board determined that her delayed filings of a cover sheet and a certificate of acceptance were fatal defects invalidating both of Ms. Seawright’s designating petitions. On Ms. Seawright’s motion to validate her petitions, Supreme Court found that she substantially complied with Election Law requirements and held that the Board of Elections thus erred in deeming her untimely submissions to be fatal to her candidacy. Recognizing “the unprecedented and catastrophic health crisis,” the court also found that Ms. Seawright’s submissions were filed by April 2, that there were no claims that the deficiencies were fraudulent or “used for any improper purpose,” and that neither the Board nor her opponents were prejudiced from the late filing of her cover sheet and certificate of acceptance. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme Court, holding that “under the unique circumstances existing in New York City during the past few months, and the specific health challenges alleged here, the belated filing of these specific documents is not a fatal defect” (Matter of Seawright v Board of Elections in the City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02900, *1 [1st Dept May 14, 2020]). That court likewise found that there was no evidence of prejudice, no challenge had been made to the number -7-