Rutter v. Coveney, 348 N.E.2d 913 (NY 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Rutter v. Coveney, 348 N.E.2d 913 (NY 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Schildt v. Campanella (nysupctmonroe, 2025-04-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Schildt v. Campanella
N.Y. Sup. Monroe · 2025 · confidence medium
The statutory language at issue herein is "designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in designation petitions" ( Alamo v. Black, 51 NY2d at 7171 , quoting Matter of Rutter v Coveney , 38 NY2d 993, 994 [1976].) The language is designed to ensure that the subscribing witness ensures that the person signing the petition is the same person identified as the "duly enrolled" voter whose signature appears on the petition and thus to prevent instances where the signer is signing on behalf of another person.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Ferreyra v. Arroyo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
"The substantive requirements of section 6-132 are designed to facilitate the discovery of irregularities or fraud in designation petitions,'" and strict compliance is therefore required ( Matter of Alamo v Black , 51 NY2d 716, 717 [1980] [invalidating petition where witness statement failed to declare that the signatories signed on the dates indicated], quoting Matter of Rutter v Coveney , 38 NY2d 993, 994 [1976]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Avella v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“While substantial compliance is acceptable as to details of form, there must be strict compliance with statutory commands as to matters of prescribed content” (Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774 [1981]; see Matter of Stoppenbach v Sweeney, 98 NY2d 431, 433 [2002]; Matter of Alamo v Black, 51 NY2d 716, 717 [1980]; Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993, 994 [1976]; Matter of DiSanzo v Addabbo, 76 AD3d at 656; Matter of Vassos v New York City Bd. of Elections, 286 AD2d at 464 ; Matter of DeBerardinis v Sunderland, 277 AD2d at 188 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Scaringe
N.Y. App. Div. · 1988 · confidence medium
We reject respondents’ contention that an exception to the general rule should be created for designating petitions for the party position of member of a county committee (see, Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993, 994 [where the court said, "To make exceptions * * * although seemingly justified in a particular instance, sanctions a practice which in another circumstance could lead to abuses”]).
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Ulster County Board of Elections
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
In Matter of Morris v Hayduk ( 45 NY2d 793, 794 ) a unanimous Court of Appeals said: "The statutory language which we have previously interpreted as requiring a subscribing witness to a designating petition in all areas of the State to list his current assembly district (Matter of Vari v Hayduk, 42 NY2d 980 ; see Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993 ) remains unchanged by the recent recodification of the Election Law (compare Election Law, § 6-132, subd 2, with L 1971, ch 424).
discussed Cited "see" Morris v. Hayduk
NY · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
The statutory language which we have previously interpreted as requiring a subscribing witness to a designating petition in all areas of the State to list his current assembly district (Matter of Vari v Hayduk, 42 NY2d 980 ; see Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993 ) remains unchanged by the recent recodification of the Election Law (compare Election Law, § 6-132, subd 2, with L 1971, ch 424).
discussed Cited "see" Schnurr v. May
N.Y. App. Div. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
The failure of the subscribing witness on sheets three and four of the petition for opportunity to ballot to specify either the election district in which she presently resides or the one where she resided at the time of the last general election is a substantial departure from the requirements of section 148-a of the Election Law which renders these sheets of the petition invalid (Matter of Periconi v Marotta, 34 AD2d 1035 ; see Matter of Rutter v Coveney, 38 NY2d 993 ; Matter of Berry v Dodd, 38 NY2d 995 ).
In the Matter of Evelyn Rutter
v.
Frank Coveney, Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, and Harold Rothstein
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 30, 1976.
348 N.E.2d 913
Samuel Rutter for appellants., Harold M. Rothstein, respondent pro se.
Cooke, Fuchsberg, Jasen.
Cited by 57 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

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).

Dissent

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.