DECISION & ORDER Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and after hearing oral arguments, for the reasons set forth on the record it is ORDERED that Motion #002 to dismiss the petition is hereby granted. This Petition was brought to invalidate the independent nominating petitions of the Respondent-Candidate Sal Albanese for the public office of member of the New York City Council from the 50th Council District in the November 2, 2021 General Election. Petitioner cites several objections to the Respondent-Candidate’s petitions for public office. First, Petitioner alleges that Respondent-Candidate’s petition volumes as labeled “RH2100425, 426″ renders the cover sheet invalid. Second, Petitioner alleges the Respondent-Candidate’s use of pre-printed sample dates, sample signatures, “Jane Z. Sample,” and a pre-printed sample address renders all petitions defective. As to the Petitioner’s first objection, the Court does not find that the Respondent-Candidate’s coversheet contains a fatal defect. Though Petitioner cites to the recent decision of Matter of Tabacco v. Board of Elections in NY, 194 AD3d 890 [2d Dept. 2021], which affirmed a decision issued by this Court, the instant case does not involve the correction of a defective cover sheet. In Tabacco, the Candidate’s coversheet contained a fatal defect. Though given opportunity to correct the defect, the Candidate’s amended cover sheet failed to cure the defect and the second amended cover sheet was not filed timely. As a result, the Candidate’s designating petitions were invalidated. See Tabacco at 891. In the instant matter, the cover sheet was not found by the Board of Elections to include a defect or an error. According to the Board of Elections’ opposition to the Petition, abbreviations for subsequent volume identification numbers are typically permitted and found valid. The labeling of subsequent petition volumes by abbreviation did not cause any confusion to the Board of Elections, or this Court. See Matter of Wagner v. Elasser, 194 AD3d 891, 893 [2d Dept. 2021]. As a result, the Court finds that the use of an abbreviation in a coversheet is not a fatal defect. As to the Petitioner’s second objection, the Court does not find a fatal defect within the petitions due to the use of a sample line. Election Law §6-140 provides, in pertinent part, that each sheet of an independent nominating petition “shall be signed in ink, shall contain the following information and shall be in substantially the following form…” The rules for designating petitions “shall be liberally construed, not inconsistent with substantial compliance thereto and the prevention of fraud.” See Election Law §6-134[10]. The Court finds that the use of a sample line did not sufficiently cause confusion or deception by the subsequent signers, or the Board of Elections. See Matter of Wagner v. Elasser, 194 AD3d 891, 893 [2d Dept. 2021]. The Election Law does not permit, nor prohibit, sample lines to be included in nominating petitions. The Court finds that the use of a sample line is unnecessary, however inconsequential, and not a basis for invalidation. Id. Based upon the foregoing, the Respondent-Candidate’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. Any other contentions by the Petitioner are without merit. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: August 20, 2021
