New York Court of Appeals, 1976

Rutter v. Coveney

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 30, 1976 · Cooke, Fuchsberg, Jasen

38 N.Y.2d 993; 348 N.E.2d 913; 384 N.Y.S.2d 437; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2633

Cases that cite this one

55 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Schulz v. Williams (2d Cir. 1994)
Schulz v. Williams (2d Cir. 1994)
Higby v. Mahoney (N.Y. 1979)
Berger v. Acito (District Court, S.D. New York 1978)
Matter of Schildt v. Campanella (New York Supreme Court, Monroe County 2025)
Hunter v. Compagni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
Wheeler v. Reddy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
Grabo v. Del Vecchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
Berger v. Acito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
Matter of Ferreyra v. Arroyo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Avella v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Schulz v. New York State Board of Elections (New York Supreme Court 1995)
Momrow v. Scaringe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Jones v. Scaringe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Rubinstein v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Staber v. Fidler (N.Y. 1985)
Burgess v. D'Apice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Halo v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Fahy v. New York State Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Matter of Gammerman v. Bd. of Elections of the City of New York (N.Y. 1982)
Leff v. Board of Elections (N.Y. 1982)
Frome v. Board of Elections of Nassau County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Ryan v. Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Donnelly v. McNab (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
Alamo v. Black (N.Y. 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum. The requirements of subdivision 3 of section 135 of the Election Law are designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in designation petitions. This purpose may only be achieved by mandating uniform and strict compliance with the statutory requirements (Matter of Sciarra v Donnelly, 34 NY2d 970; Gordop v Catania, 34 NY2d 964; Matter of Clune v Hayduk, 34 NY2d 965). To make exceptions, county by county, although seemingly justified in a particular instance, sanctions a practice which in another circumstance could lead to abuses (cf. Matter of Berry v Dodd, 38 NY2d 995, involving Nassau County).

Dissenting Opinion

Jasen, Fuchsberg and Cooke, JJ.

(dissenting). There was substantial compliance here with the requirements of subdivision 3 of section 135 of the Election Law. Accordingly, we would reverse on the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice James D. Hopkins at the Appellate Division, noting that this case is one involving a Suffolk County election and that, in that county, as in all but 6 of the 62 counties in the State, the setting forth of a subscribing witness’ election district fully serves the function which the furnishing of such a witness’ assembly district may otherwise fulfill in protecting against fraud or irregularity. Significantly, petitions in Suffolk may indicate signers’ election rather than assembly districts (§ 135, subd 1). Thus the election district was not only the regular index for the checking of all signatures of witnesses or subscribers on the petitions here, but the more convenient one as well. Interestingly, when subdivision 3 of section 135 was amended in 1971, the qualifying word "material” was added to the statute for the first time, the word "substantially” was continued and the words "where required” inserted to follow *995"Assembly District”. These nonabsolutes can have had no purpose other than to evince an intention not to disenfranchise voters for the kind of nonprejudicial technicality on which the petitions here were invalidated. Any other interpretation would elevate form over substance in a matter as vital to us as the election process.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur; Judges Jasen, Fuchsberg and Cooke dissent and vote to reverse in a memorandum.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.