In the Matter of Dipple v. Devine

In In the Matter of Dipple v. Devine et al., 218 A.D.2d 918 (Third Dept., 1995), the candidate specified his post office address as New Paltz, while omitting that his town of residence was Gardiner. The court rejected the petitioner's sole argument that the failure to specify the town of actual residence created a reasonable probability of confusion. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue presented here (the requirement in Section 6-132(1) that the petition set forth both the candidate's place of residence and post office address where not identical), and that therefore that issue was not before the court (id., at 919). Thus, literal compliance remains the standard.