MATTER OF JONAS v. VELEZ, 65 N.Y.2d 954 (1985)

483 N.E.2d 1151, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1019

In the Matter of LILLIAN JONAS et al., Appellants, v. OTTO VELEZ et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued August 26, 1985
Decided August 28, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Martin Evans, J.

Page 955

John C. Klotz and Kathryn E. Freed for appellants.

Sol Rudes for Seymour Friedman, respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, without costs.

Essential to the integrity of the petition process is the subscribing witness’s statement authorized by Election Law §6-132 and particularly that portion of it which contains the total number of signatures on the petition sheet to which it is appended. We have, therefore, consistently held that alteration of the statement which is unexplained and uninitialed will result in the invalidation of the petition sheet (Matter of Sheldon v Sperber, 45 N.Y.2d 788; Matter of Klemann v Acito, 45 N.Y.2d 796 affg 64 A.D.2d 952; Matter of Nobles v Grant, 41 N.Y.2d 1048 affg 57 A.D.2d 600). The fact that the alterations here resulted in the manifestation of correct information, or that the numbers inserted were smaller, rather than larger, as in Matter of Berger v Acito (64 A.D.2d 949, lv denied 45 N.Y.2d 707), does not remedy the legal deficiency (see, Matter of White v McNab, 40 N.Y.2d 912, 913). It does not unduly burden the designating petition process to require that a subscribing witness whose statement has been changed initial the change and explain the reason for it (see, Matter of Roman v Sharpe, 42 N.Y.2d 986, 987 cf. Matter of Grancio v Coveney, 60 N.Y.2d 608, 611).