Matter of Tatar v. Di Carlo, 61 N.Y.2d 446 (1984)
A designating petition is invalid if the subscribing witness lists an address that is not, in fact, their place of residence, even if the witness transferred their enrollment to that address in anticipation of running for office and relied on an opinion from the State Board of Elections.
Summary
This case concerns the validity of a designating petition where the subscribing witness listed an address that was not his actual residence. The New York Court of Appeals held that the petition was invalid because it failed to satisfy the requirement of Election Law § 6-132(2) that the subscribing witness’s place of residence be included. The court reasoned that even though the witness had transferred his enrollment to the listed address based on a State Board of Elections opinion and a desire to run for office, this did not validate the false statement of residence on the petition.
Facts
The subscribing witness, Tatar, inserted an address on the designating petition that was not, in fact, his place of residence. Tatar had transferred his enrollment to this address with the hope of becoming a candidate for membership in the State Committee of his party from the assembly district in which that address was located. He relied on an opinion from the State Board of Elections that candidates for election as State Committeemen in 1984 needed only be residents of the appropriate county due to reapportionment in 1982.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division concluded, based on the evidence and Tatar’s acknowledgment, that the address he listed on the designating petition was not his actual residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order without costs.
Issue(s)
Whether a designating petition is valid when the subscribing witness lists an address that is not, in fact, their place of residence, even if the witness transferred their enrollment to that address in anticipation of running for office and relied on an opinion from the State Board of Elections.
Holding
No, because the petition did not satisfy the requirement of Election Law § 6-132(2) that the subscribing witness’s place of residence be included. Tatar’s intent and reliance on the State Board of Elections’ opinion do not override the actual fact of his non-residence at the listed address.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing that the address inserted by Tatar was not his actual place of residence. The court directly cited Matter of Frome v Board of Elections, 57 NY2d 741, to support its conclusion that the petition was properly invalidated due to the inaccurate address. The court dismissed Tatar’s reliance on the State Board of Elections’ opinion as insufficient to validate the designation of the false address. The court reasoned that the actual place of residence is a material fact, and a false statement regarding it invalidates the petition, regardless of the witness’s subjective intent or reliance on external opinions. The court appeared to strictly construe the requirements of the election law, prioritizing accuracy in designating petitions. There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.