Opinion
August 28, 1981
In a proceeding to, inter alia, validate petitions designating the petitioners as candidates in the Republican Party Primary Election to be held on September 10, 1981, for the party position of County Committee Member from various election districts, Town of Babylon, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered August 20, 1981, which, inter alia, granted the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The identification of the party position sought omitted a geographic detail (the town name) that would have made the description more precise. However, given the information in the rest of the petition, it was sufficiently informative under section 6-132 Elec. of the Election Law so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections (see Matter of Denn v. Mahoney, 64 A.D.2d 1007; Matter of Cook v. Zelazny, 49 A.D.2d 1036; Matter of Murray v. Coveney, 39 A.D.2d 932; Matter of Margolis v. Larkin, 39 A.D.2d 952, affd 30 N.Y.2d 876; Matter of Caffery v. Lawley, 21 A.D.2d 749, affd 14 N.Y.2d 768; Matter of Pearson v. Board of Elections of City of Syracuse, 284 App. Div. 649; Matter of Carusone v. Varney, 277 App. Div. 326, affd sub nom. Matter of Barber v. Varney, 301 N.Y. 669; Matter of Praete v Van Wart, 47 Misc.2d 898; Matter of Duffy v. Board of Elections of County of Westchester, 40 Misc.2d 175). There is no claim that the identification was inaccurate and that therefore, whether or not ambiguous for lack of specificity or precision in description, there was some impairment of the board of elections' ability to ascertain the candidate's qualifications and the indicated office's availability (see Matter of Kiley v. Coveney, 77 A.D.2d 941, affd 51 N.Y.2d 721; Matter of Roland v. Toepfer, 64 A.D.2d 963; Matter of Lane v. Meisser, 24 A.D.2d 720). Finally, the requirement that office descriptions be sufficiently precise as well as accurate must be distinguished from other provisions of the Election Law that require specific information in particular form, such as an Assembly District number, for which paraphrasing or substituting equivalent information is inadequate (see, e.g., Matter of Higby v. Mahoney, 48 N.Y.2d 15; Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 N.Y.2d 993). Appellants' other arguments have been considered and found to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.