In the Matter of Lillian Liss, Appellant, v. Anthony Sadowski et al., Respondents; David Kaplan, Respondent-Respondent

(April 19, 1983) In the Matter of Lillian Liss, Appellant, v Anthony Sadowski et al., Respondents; David Kaplan, Respondent-Respondent. [MAJORITY] — Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.), dated March 21, 1983, which, inter alia, dismissed the proceeding to validate a petition designating Lillian Liss as a candidate in the Community School Board election in Community School District No. 15 to be held on May 3, 1983. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see Matter of Higby v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 15; Education Law, § 2590-c, subd 6, par [31]). Lazer, J. P., O’Connor and Bracken, JJ., concur. [DISSENT — Brown, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and validate the designating petition, with the following memorandum:] Brown, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and validate the designating petition, with the following memorandum: In my view the designating petition at bar should not have been declared invalid. This matter is distinguishable on its facts from Matter of Higby v Mahoney (48 NY2d 15), relied upon by the majority. Here, unlike Higby, there was no omission of the subscribing witness’ election or assembly district. Rather, what we have at bar is simply a case in which the subscribing witness — the candidate’s husband — inadvertently transposed the election and assembly district numbers of his otherwise correctly stated residence. This is, to my mind, a mere inconsequential defect, not in any wise likely to defraud, deceive or mislead. It does not justify invalidation of the designating petition.