54 N.Y.2d 781 (1981)
When a significant number of signatures collected by a subscribing witness on a petition are proven fraudulent, the court must consider whether these irregularities permeate the entire petition, potentially invalidating even seemingly valid signatures collected by that witness.
Summary
This case concerns a challenge to a petition designating a candidate for a Republican primary election. The central issue is whether the established fraudulent signatures gathered by a single subscribing witness invalidate all signatures collected by that witness, even those not directly proven fraudulent. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the stipulation regarding the 45 mismatched signatures, without a finding of fraud, did not automatically invalidate the remaining 13 signatures collected by the same witness. The court remitted the case for factual consideration of whether the irregularities permeated the entire set of signatures.
Facts
Ronald D’Angelo was a candidate in a Republican primary election. Alfonso Kitt served as the subscribing witness for 58 signatures on D’Angelo’s designating petition. The Board of Elections initially invalidated 1,065 signatures, leaving D’Angelo 355 signatures short of the required amount. At a hearing, D’Angelo conceded that 45 of the 58 signatures collected by Kitt were apparent forgeries because they did not match the signatures on file with the Board of Elections.
Procedural History
The hearing court struck the 45 conceded forged signatures but declined to strike the remaining 13 signatures collected by Kitt. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the irregularities concerning 45 of the 58 signatures permeated the entire collection, invalidating all signatures obtained by Kitt. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case back to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the high incidence of admitted irregularities and apparent forgeries among signatures collected by a subscribing witness on an election petition requires, as a matter of law, that all signatures collected by that witness be invalidated, even absent direct proof of fraud for each signature.
Holding
No, because a stipulation regarding mismatched signatures, absent a specific finding of fraud, does not automatically invalidate all signatures collected by the subscribing witness; the court must factually determine whether the irregularities permeate the entire set of signatures.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Appellate Division erred in applying the “permeation principle” as a matter of law based solely on the stipulation regarding the 45 signatures. The court distinguished this situation from cases where actual fraudulent practices were proven. The court emphasized that the stipulation alone, without a finding of fraudulent intent or practice, was insufficient to invalidate the remaining 13 signatures. The court stated, “The stipulation made did not by itself establish such gross irregularity or fraudulent practice with respect to the 45 signatures as to bring into play the permeation principle announced in the cases on which the Appellate Division relied. It was, therefore, error to invalidate the remaining 13 signatures as a matter of law.” The dissent argued that the high number of conceded forgeries created a presumption of permeation that should invalidate all signatures collected by Kitt, absent some explanation to the contrary. The majority, however, required a factual determination by the Appellate Division.