| Matter of Cirillo v Gardiner |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06267 [65 AD3d 638] |
| August 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Donald King Cirillo et al., Petitioners, and TheresaK. Quigley et al., Respondents, v Bill Gardiner, Appellant, et al.,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petitiondesignating Bill Gardiner as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 2009,for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member ofthe Town Council of the Town of East Hampton, Bill Gardiner appeals from a final order of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated August 14, 2009, which, after a hearing,granted the petition, invalidated the designating petition, and directed the Suffolk County Boardof Elections not to place his name on the ballot.
Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A designating petition may be invalidated where "there is a finding that the candidate hasparticipated in or is chargeable with knowledge of fraud in procuring signatures for a designatingpetition, even if there is a sufficient number of valid signatures independent of those fraudulentlyprocured" (Matter of Drace vSayegh, 43 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]; see Matter of Leonard v Pradhan, 286 AD2d459 [2001]; Matter of MacDougall v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 133 AD2d 198[1987]).
Here, the testimony at the hearing revealed that a subscribing witness did not personallywitness and identify all of the signatures to which he attested (see Election Law §6-132 [2]; Matter of Tapper vSampel, 54 AD3d 435 [2008]). Moreover, the record supports the Supreme Court'sdetermination that the candidate had knowledge of the fraudulent manner in which the signatureswere procured, and that he approved of such methods. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properlygranted the petition, invalidated the designating petition, and directed the Suffolk County Boardof Elections not to place the candidate's name on the ballot (see Matter of Ryan v SuffolkCounty Bd. of Elections, 286 AD2d 461, 462 [2001]; Matter of Layden v Gargiulo,77 AD2d 933, 934 [1980]).
The candidate's remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light ofour determination. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.