Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law Section 16-102(1) by way of Order to Show Cause seeking the following relief: "1. Declaring valid, proper, sufficient and legally effective the designating petition heretofore filed in the office of the ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, designating the petitioner herein as candidate of the Democratic Party for the Public Office of Mayor of the Village of Spring Valley, in the Democratic Primary Election to be held on September 10, 2013. 2. Directing, requiring, and commanding the Respondent, ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS to place and print the name of the petitioner as a candidate for the said office or position at the [*2]Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on September 10, 2013. 3. Enjoining and restraining the ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS from certifying, authorizing, printing, issuing or distributing for use during the said during the said [sic] Democratic Party Primary Election any official ballots upon which the name of the petitioner does not appear as a candidate for the said office or petition." See, Verified Petition at p. 4 and the proposed Order to Show Cause.^[FN1] On the return date of the Order to Show Cause, the parties appeared before this Court. At that time, the Court was advised of the basis of the objections to the designating petitions.^[FN2] Specifically, Respondent Laurent Schneider (hereinafter "Schneider") objected to numerous signatures on Petitioner's designating petitions claiming that the addresses of the signers were improper and/or inaccurate. See, Schneider's Specifications (referred to as the Summary Sheet). Specifically, with respect to these signature entries, Schneider stated, "Invalid address: The address given does not exist. There is no [house number and street address] in zip code 10977." Respondent Rockland County Board of Elections (hereinafter "the Board") agreed with Schneider that the addresses given were invalid. See, Notices from the Board addressed to Petitioner and Schneider, respectively, dated July 19, 2013.

For the purpose of the within Order to Show Cause, the parties have limited their objections to 27 signatures for which they seek a determination from the Court. In that regard, the parties waived a hearing and consented to the Court deciding the merits of the proceeding on the record.^[FN3]

Respondents cite to Election Law Sections 6-130 and 6-132 in support of their argument that the 27 signatures on the five designating petitions in dispute are invalid.^[FN4] To begin, Election [*3]Law Section 6-130, which pertains to designating petitions and signer information, states that "[t]he sheets of a designating petition must set forth in every instance the name of the signer, his or her residence address, town or city (except in the city of New York, the county), and the date when the signature is affixed." The form of the designating petition is governed by the other section cited by Respondent, i.e., Election Law Section 6-132. That section requires the designating petition to be signed in ink and to contain "the following information and [to] be in substantially the following form: I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a duly enrolled voter of the .......... party and entitled to vote at the next primary election of such party, to be held on ........, 20...; that my place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto...." Section 6-132 actually sets forth what the form should look like and states that a designating petition must substantially conform with the format set forth in the statute. The statutory form pertaining to the signer information is as follows:

DateName of SignerResidenceTown or city ^[FN5]

.................................................

.................................................

See, Election Law §6-132(1).

Having read these sections and viewing them in conjunction with the other sections of Title I of Article Six of the Election Law, this Court finds that the parties' reliance on Sections 6-130 and 6-132 is misplaced and the cited statutes are inapplicable to village elections.^[FN6] Title I of Article Six clearly governs elections for non-village public offices. In other words, Title I of Article Six governs the designation and nomination of candidates for town or city, county, state and federal public offices. See, e.g., Matter of Stoppenbach v. Sweeney, 98 NY2d 431 (2002)(Candidate for the office of House of Representative for the 20th Congressional District); Matter of Tischler v. Hikind, 98 AD3d 926 (2d Dept. 2012)(Candidate for the office of Member of the [*4]Assembly, 48th Assembly District); Matter of DiSanzo v. Addabbo, 76 AD3d 655 (2d Dept. 2010)(Candidate for the office of State Senator for the 15th Senatorial District); Matter of Stark v. Kelleher, 32 AD3d 663 (3d Dept. 2006)(Candidate for the office of State Senator for the 44th Senate District); Matter of Gonzalez v. Levine, 32 AD3d 483 (2d Dept. 2006 (Candidate for the office of Member of Assembly, 13th Assembly District). Since signers of designating petitions to nominate candidates for these public offices must reside within the town or city or district, it is necessary for the signer to indicate the town or city in which they reside to ensure that the signer is eligible to vote for that public office. The residence address and town or city will determine whether the signer is eligible to vote for the public office for which the candidate is being nominated.

On the other hand, the information required on a designating petition for a candidate running for a village public office does not require the signer to indicate his or her town or city of residence. Specifically, Election Law Section 6-204, which governs the form of designating petitions for elective village offices, provides that such designating petitions shall "contain[] the signatures in ink of residents of the village who are registered to vote with the appropriate county board of elections at the time of signing and who are enrolled in such political party."^[FN7] Specifically, the format of the designating petition where it requests signer information as set forth in the statute is as follows:

DateNameResidence

............................................

............................................

See, Election Law §6-204(1). Clearly missing from the designating petition for a village election is the request for the signer to provide his or her town/city. As a signer on a designating petition for a candidate running for a village public office must reside within the village in order to vote in the village election, there is no need for the signer to provide the village or hamlet in which he or she resides. The house number and street address clearly provides sufficient information to determine whether the signer is a "resident of the village" and registered to vote. As the Petitioner here is a candidate for the office of village mayor, [*5]the form of the designating petition set forth in Election Law Section 6-204(1) should have been utilized.^[FN8] Petitioner's use of the statutory form of a designating petition under Election Law §6-132, which requires the signer to provide his or her town/city of residence, is the cause of the within confusion. Had the Petitioner utilized the correct form, it is this Court's opinion that there would be no controversy. Moreover, had the Petitioner utilized the Section 6-204 form, the 27 disputed entries would be valid, especially since there is no dispute that all 27 signers are eligible to vote in the Spring Valley village primary election.

Moreover, since the designating petitions at issue were in the Section 6-132 format, the Court finds that the disputed entries comply with that section as well and are therefore valid. The recent legislative enactions of the Election Reform Act of 1992 and the Ballot Access Law of 1996 "manifested the Legislature's intent to remove technical barriers to a proposed candidacy not tainted by fraud or wrongdoing." Curley v. Zacek, 9 Misc 3d 1120(a)(Saratoga Cnty. Supr. Ct. 2005). Here, the signers provided the information required under the statute. In each case, the signer set forth the date, his or her signature and his or her residence address. See, Matter of Tully v. Ketover, 10 AD3d 436 (Clarifying that the residence address is the correctly-stated street name and house number). The area on the form where the signer was to provide his or her residence already had "Spring Valley" pre-printed on it next to where the signer was to provide his or her house number and street name. The section on the form where the signer was to indicate the town or city of residence was also already pre-printed.^[FN9] Since the 27 signers are, without dispute, eligible to vote in the Spring Valley village primary election, it is of no moment that the signers failed to correct the pre-printed form by crossing out "Spring Valley" and substituting "Monsey" in its place. Not only is there no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of either the Petitioner or the signers, "[t]here is no requirement [in Election Law §6-130 or §6-132(1)]. . . that a signer list the hamlet or particular geographic area within the town or city in which he or she resides." Matter of Gonzalez, 32 AD3d 483. [*6]

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the relief sought by the Petitioner in his petition is granted in its entirety.

E N T E R

Dated: August 2, 2013

New City, New York

Hon. Victor J. Alfieri, Jr.

Acting Supreme Court Justice

TO:Guy T. Parisi, Esq.

720 Milton Road, Suite J1

Rye, NY 10580-3258

Antonio F. Reda, Esq.

REDA, SCHWAN & ASSOCIATES, LLP

20 S. Main Street

New City, NY 10956

Michael Specht, Esq.

334 S. Middletown Road

Nanuet, NY 10954-3333