Braxton v. Mahoney

— Order affirmed, without costs.

Memorandum: Special Term properly rejected respondents’ contention that petitioner’s designating petition was invalid because it was not numbered in compliance with subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law. The petition contained only two pages which Special Term found were fastened together either by staple or paper clip. Under these circumstances we conclude that the perpetration of any fraud or deception was a virtual impossibility (see Matter of Rosen v McNab, 25 NY2d 798; Matter of Lawrence v Coveney, 39 AD2d 951; Matter of Reed v Power, 37 AD2d 793; Matter of Lloyd v Power, 37 AD2d 792). All concur, except Callahan and O’Donnell, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the petition in the following memorandum.

Respondents challenged the petition on the basis that the pages were not consecutively numbered, beginning with the number one as required by subdivision 2 of section 6-134 of the Election Law. In our view Special Term improperly validated the petition and ordered that the petitioner’s name be placed on the ballot. Petitioner has shown neither strict nor substantial compliance with the Election Law. Neither of the sheets was given any number and they were not numbered consecutively, beginning with the number one as is required by statute (Matter of Nagiel v Laukaitis, 278 NY 696). Nor was there substantial compliance with the statute. *730Neither sheet taken separately had the sufficient number of signatures so as to permit validation in the absence of the consecutive numbering (Matter of Rosen v McNab, 25 NY2d 798). The separate sheets cannot be considered together so as to satisfy the requisite number of signatures as the individual sheets were not consecutively numbered (Matter of Turner v Lawley, 25 NY2d 963). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J. — Election Law.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 22, 1984.)