51 N.Y.2d 747 (1980)
When a court finds evidence of fraud and irregularities in the collection of signatures for an election petition, and those irregularities permeate the petitions obtained by the involved subscribing witnesses, the court may invalidate the tainted petitions.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of petitions designating candidates for Democratic Party primary elections. Special Term invalidated the petitions due to irregularities, including misrepresented information to signatories and improper witnessing of signatures. The Appellate Division reversed, finding insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the evidence presented at Special Term was sufficient to demonstrate that the irregularities permeated the petitions gathered by specific subscribing witnesses. This reduced the number of valid signatures below the required threshold, warranting invalidation.
Facts
Several irregularities were found in the process of collecting signatures for designating petitions in Democratic primary elections. Specifically, twelve signatories had not made the required affirmation, one signatory who did not speak English was misled about the petition’s purpose, and the candidate himself acted as a subscribing witness for signatures actually gathered by another person. The respondents also failed to call subscribing witnesses under their control to testify about the petitioning process.
Procedural History
Special Term invalidated the petitions. The Appellate Division reversed, finding insufficient proof of permeation of fraud as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, remitting the case for consideration of the facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented at Special Term was sufficient to establish that fraud and irregularities permeated the election petitions, justifying their invalidation.
Holding
Yes, because the instances of fraud found by the Special Term went beyond mere irregularities and permeated all the petitions obtained by the subscribing witnesses involved, thereby reducing the number of valid signatures below the required amount.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the evidence was insufficient