Matter of Kremenstein v. Doherty, 46 N.Y.2d 958 (1979)

When strict compliance with a statutory form is impossible, substantial compliance that is accurately informative is sufficient, particularly when dealing with newly registered voters acting as subscribing witnesses to designating petitions.

Summary

This case concerns challenges to designating petitions based on alleged irregularities in the witness statements. Specifically, the petitions included the words “new voter” in the witness statement and contained alterations to dates. The Court of Appeals held that the inclusion of “new voter” was permissible because the standard form lacked a provision for newly registered voters. Further, because the lower court determined as a matter of fact that date changes were made by the witness before signing and did not affect the petition’s validity, that determination was beyond the Court of Appeals’ review. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with the Election Law is sufficient when strict compliance is impossible.

Facts

Iris Ortiz, a newly registered voter, served as a subscribing witness for designating petitions. The printed form for the witness statement lacked a specific field to indicate that the witness was a newly registered voter. Ortiz inserted the words “new voter” into her witness statement. Certain dates on the petitions were altered. The appellant challenged the validity of the petitions based on these alterations and the “new voter” insertion.

Procedural History

Special Term found that the alterations in dates were made by the subscribing witness before signing and did not affect the validity of the petition. The Special Term also upheld the validity of the petitions despite the inclusion of “new voter” in the witness statement. The Appellate Division affirmed this determination. The dissenting justices at the Appellate Division expressed a difference of opinion regarding the factual determination about the date changes. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal taken as of right because the dissent at the Appellate Division was not on a question of law. However, the Court then granted the appellant’s alternative application for leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the insertion of the words “new voter” in the statement of a subscribing witness invalidates designating petitions when the witness is a newly registered voter and the statutory form lacks a specific provision for such a situation.

2. Whether alterations to dates on designating petitions invalidate the petitions when the alterations were made by the subscribing witness before signing and did not affect the validity of the petition.

Holding

1. No, because strict conformity with the statutory form is impossible when the subscribing witness is a newly registered voter, and the insertion of the words “new voter” is sufficiently and accurately informative and constitutes compliance with the Election Law.

2. No, because the lower court’s determination that the alterations were made by the subscribing witness before signing and did not affect the validity of the petition is a factual determination affirmed at the Appellate Division and is therefore beyond the scope of review of the Court of Appeals.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that strict compliance with the Election Law form was impossible because it lacked a provision for newly registered voters acting as subscribing witnesses. Therefore, the insertion of “new voter” was deemed a sufficiently informative and accurate way to comply with the law’s intent. The court emphasized that the Election Law requires substantial compliance, especially when literal compliance is impossible.

Regarding the date alterations, the Court deferred to the lower courts’ factual findings. Since the Special Term determined that the alterations were made by the witness prior to signing and did not affect the petition’s validity, and the Appellate Division affirmed this determination, the Court of Appeals was bound by this finding of fact. The dissent at the Appellate Division was not on a question of law, but rather on the factual determination, further solidifying the Court of Appeals’ limited scope of review.

The Court implicitly acknowledges the importance of ensuring that newly registered voters are not disenfranchised due to the rigidity of statutory forms. By accepting “new voter” as a valid addition, the court prioritizes the substance of compliance over strict adherence to a form that does not contemplate all situations.