You are here: / / DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR...

DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the designating petition should not have been invalidated. One of the signatories to the petition had apparently signed on her husband’s behalf because his hands were weak. The wife put her initials next to the signature and testified her husband had given her permission to sign and she had the authority to sign pursuant to a power of attorney. Supreme Court struck all signatures on the relevant page. The Fourth Department held that, at most, only the one signature should have been struck:

​

… [T]he use of a proxy to sign the purported signatory’s name was apparent from the face of the petition sheet. Even assuming, arguendo, that the signature was invalid, we conclude that, in the absence of any hidden infirmity in the petition sheet or in the subscribing witness statement that would potentially “confuse, hinder, or delay any attempt to ascertain or to determine the identity, status, and address” of any signatory or witness … , the court improperly struck the entire page on which the signature appeared … . Only the invalid signature should have been stricken under the circumstances of this case, leaving respondent with 347 signatures, one more than the required 346 … . Matter of Van Der Water v Czarny, 2017 NY Slip Op 06408, Fourth Dept 9-6-17

ELECTION LAW (DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))/DESIGNATING PETITION (ELECTION LAW, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))/SIGNATURES (ELECTION LAW, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, WIFE SIGNED FOR HUSBAND WHO WAS PRESENT, AT MOST ONLY THE ONE SIGNATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK, NOT THE ENTIRE PAGE OF SIGNATURES (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Surrogate’s Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine the Validity of a Handwritten Will Supported by the Affidavits of Two Attesting Witnesses—If Valid, the 2012 Handwritten Will Would Have Revoked the 2002 Will
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITH LIVE WITNESSES AT WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY IN THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF HIS CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; SUPREME COURT HAD ORDERED A HEARING CONDUCTED BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
JURY INSTRUCTION ALLOWED CONVICTION ON A THEORY NOT IN THE INDICTMENT, COUNT DISMISSED, SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT CONSIDER MITIGATING FACTORS AND INDICATED DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED HARSHLY BECAUSE HE WENT TO TRIAL, SENTENCE REDUCED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?
DEFENDANT’S INSTRUCTING ANOTHER TO KILL HIS WIFE AND HER MOTHER DID NOT COME NEAR ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISHING MURDER TO SUPPORT THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHICH DID NOT OWN THE AREA WHERE PLANTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL COULD BE LIABLE UNDER THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO UPGRADE 1930’S ELECTRICAL... STATUTES WHICH CRIMINALIZE ASSISTED SUICIDE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).