Dipple v. Devine

In Dipple v. Devine, 218 A.D.2d 918 (3d Dept 1995), the signature pages of the designating petition indicated that the office sought was "County Legislator," and the basis of the challenge was that this failed to indicate "the specific legislative district." The Third Department affirmed on the basis that the signature pages denoted a street address in New Paltz as Devine's residence, and that the town of New Paltz is "exclusively within the seventh legislative district." Thus, there was no "'reasonable probability' that someone dealing with Devine's designating petition could have thought that he was running in a legislative district other than the seventh legislative district."