Matter of Quinones v. Board of Elections, 40 N.Y.2d 813 (1976)
Misconduct by a candidate in soliciting signatures on designating petitions warrants invalidation of all signatures obtained by that candidate only if the misconduct is of such character or magnitude as to warrant an inference that similar misconduct permeated other signatures obtained by him.
Summary
This case concerns a challenge to the validity of signatures on designating petitions for candidates in an election. The petitioners argued that a candidate, Silva, engaged in fraudulent conduct by postdating signatures on the petitions. The trial court invalidated all signatures obtained by Silva based on this misconduct. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to infer that the misconduct permeated all signatures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the proved instances of postdating were too few to justify invalidating all signatures obtained by Silva. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether misconduct permeated the signatures is a question of fact.
Facts
Three subscribers testified before the referee that Silva, a candidate and subscribing witness, obtained their signatures on the designating petition and registration forms simultaneously. The registration cards were date-stamped earlier than the dates on the petition signatures, suggesting postdating. The trial court found that Silva participated in the postdating and invalidated all 91 signatures he obtained.
Procedural History
The petitioners initiated a proceeding to invalidate the designating petition of Gonzalez, Silva, and Velez. The Supreme Court invalidated the signatures obtained by Silva. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s order, reversing the invalidation and granting ancillary relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the candidate’s misconduct in postdating a few signatures warrants an inference that similar misconduct permeated other signatures obtained by him, justifying the invalidation of all those signatures.
Holding
No, because the small number of proved incidents of postdating was insufficient to support an inference of permeation such as to invalidate all the signatures procured by Silva.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the evidence was insufficient to infer that Silva’s misconduct permeated all the signatures he obtained. The court acknowledged that in some cases, a candidate’s misconduct might be so significant as to warrant such an inference. However, in this case, the court found that the proved instances of postdating were too few to justify invalidating all 91 signatures. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether misconduct permeated the signatures is a question of fact. The court stated: “Whether to draw an inference of permeation would usually be a question of fact (cf. Matter of Ruiz v McKenna, 40 NY2d 815).” The Court deferred to the Appellate Division’s factual determination that the conduct was insufficient to support an inference of permeation. The court also noted that the petitioners’ attempt to introduce additional evidence of postdating was rejected by both lower courts, and this factual determination was beyond the scope of the Court of Appeals’ review. Because the court found the number of incidents of postdating to be small, it could not conclude that the appellate division’s determination was incorrect.