In a proceeding pursuant to section 330 of the Election Law to validate a petition designating petitioner,
It now further appears, without explanation, that sheets numbered 110 to 119, inclusive, supposedly contained in Volume V, were actually missing therefrom when processed by the Board of Elections. The board passed upon a Volume V which contained sheets numbered 98 to 109 and then skipped through to sheet 120. What actual number of valid signatures was contained in the missing sheets does not presently appear. According to the learned Special Term, the Board of Elections concluded that petitioner’s designating papers contained a total of only 1,626 signatures, according to its count; that of this number, 1,151 were contained in the sheets numbered 1 through 109; and that 681 of these 1,151 signatures were invalid for various deficiencies. Special Term found that only sheets numbered 1 through 109 were correctly to he counted; that in these sheets the Board of Elections had improperly invalidated 455 signatures, leaving a total number of 696 valid signatures on sheets 1 through 109. Since the number of signatures needed for nomination is concededly 695, Special Term found no necessity for investigating into the propriety of signatures otherwise challenged. The difficulty with the conclusion that inspection of the sheets numbered 1 through 109 is sufficient may be found in the fact that, of the 696 signatures validated at Special Term, it now appears that two of those signatures were not good in that they were furnished by voters residing outside of the Judicial District here involved. There would thus be left only 694 valid signatures, two less than the required number. Under the circumstances, it is our view that there should be a remand and an immediate hearing de nova to determine whether the papers allegedly filed by petitioner were later unstapled and, if so, by whom and for what purpose; whether the papers filed actually contained the sheets
