As we explained in our case summary, the question in this case was whether petitioner established a prima facie case that a candidate’s designating petition was permeated with fraud. A divided court (per curiam) held that petitioner had made such a showing and invalidated the candidate’s petition.
Petitioner in this case challenged the signatures obtained by a candidate seeking to run in the democratic primary for a state legislative seat. A divided panel of the First Department held that, while there were some irregularities in the candidate’s petition, they were not so pervasive as to establish that the entire petition was permeated with fraud.
The majority reversed in a short decision. This was “one of those rare instances,” the majority explained, where there was so much fraud in a petition as to require its invalidation. The majority pointed to the fact that 512 out of 944 signatures on the petition were improperly backdated, and that 14 of the 28 witnesses had improperly affixed their signatures to the petition.
Judge Stein dissented. In her view, the majority exceeded its review power by overturning affirmed findings of fact below. To be sure, a series of petition irregularities can give rise to an inference that an entire petition is fraudulent. But the decision to draw such an inference, Judge Stein explained, was generally a question of fact. And in this case, she pointed out, a referee, Supreme Court, and the Appellate Division had all resolved that question of fact in the candidate’s favor. In Judge Stein’s view, the Court was bound by those factual determinations and should thus have affirmed.