Summary of Respondent Santabarbara’s Relevant Testimony
Santabarbara testified that he had circulated petitions for his candidacy on the Change
Albany Now line. He indicated that he solicited signatures in different parts of the l05’
Assembly District, including such public places as a Stewart’s shop, a roller rink and an ice
cream store. Santabarbara testified that he changed the town or city as well as the address
portion of signatures he collected on the nominating petition when he thought the information
was incorrect. He further indicated that he made said changes by striking the information with a
line and initialing the change.
In response to a question about a signature he collected on line two, sheet four, of the
nominating petition, respondent Santabarbara testified that the signer had indicated that his
Residence was 130 W Fulton Street, Gloversville, New York and that his Town or City was
Gloversville. Santabarbara testified that he crossed out Gloversville in both sections, initialed
both cross-outs, and wrote in “Amsterdam” next to the crossed-out and initialed “Gloversville”
under the Town/City section. He indicated that he did so because he was collecting signatures in
Amsterdam that day and believed there was a 130 West Fulton Street in the Town of Amsterdam.
It is worthy of note that Santabarbara testified that at the time he collected the aforementioned
signature, he did not realize that Gloversville was not in the 1 05I Assembly District.
Santabarbara was asked about line thirteen of that same sheet. The signer had indicated
that his/her address was 2004 Brandywine. The Town/City is illegible to the Court, but appears
to be “Guilderland.” Santabarbara indicated that he could not make the Town/City out, so he
At the hearing, respondent Santabarbara and petitioners stipulated that the I 05°’
Assembly District is comprised of the County of Montgomery, and part of the County of
Schenectady, including the towns of Duanesburg, Princetown, Rotterdam and part of the City of
Schenectady.
-4-
crossed out the Town/City information written by the signer and wrote in “Schenectady.” While
he did not initial this change, he further indicated that he made the change because he was
collecting signatures in Schenectady and believed that Brandywine Avenue was a Schenectady
address. Santabarbara further testified about a signature he collected on line twelve, sheet
eight, of the nominating petition. Therein, the signer indicated that his/her Town or City was
Troy. No changes or alterations were made to the address information accompanying this
signature. Santabarbara testified that he knew that Troy is in Rensselaer County and is not part
of the I 05” Assembly District. He testified that he submitted the petition knowing that this
particular signature was invalid. After questions by petitioners concerning a number of
additional signatures of individuals who lived outside the 105” District, the parties stipulated that
90 of the 567 signatures collected by Santabarbara were, at the time of submission to NYSBOB,
known by him to be individuals who did no reside within the 105”' District.
Santabarbara was also asked about line seven of sheet one hundred and sixty-four. The
signer wrote 183 Wolf Hollow Rd Scotia under the section entitled Residence Address.
Santabarbara filled in “Schenectady” under the Town/City section and placed his initials next to
“Schenectady.” He indicated that he did so because he thought the particular road was in
Schenectady and because he was collecting signatures in Schenectady.
Santabarbara was also asked about line one of sheet one hundred and sixty-five. The
Residence Address is not wholly legible, but appears to include the words “Stanly St”.
Santabarbara crossed out the word that appears to be “Stanly,” and wrote in “State.” 1-Je initialed
this change. He did the same for line two of said sheet which contained a similarly illegible
Residence Address.
In response to questioning from the Court, Santabarbara indicated that he initialed all
changes, alterations or clarifications that he made to the sheets of the nominating petition. He
did not place his initials on the nominating petition in situations where he wrote in the Town/City
when the signer had left the Town/City section blank. Santabarbara further testified on a number
of occasions that he did not believe that he had to strike “out-of-district” signatures, because
Brian Quail, identified as the Chairman of the Schenectady County Democratic Party, had
reviewed most of the signatures and told respondent that he did not need to strike said “out-of-
-5-
district” signatures.
Summary of Jennifer Santabarbara’s Relevant Testimony
Mrs. Santabarbara is married to respondent Santabarbara. She testified that she collected
signatures for the nominating petition at issue. She was asked about a signature at line nine of
sheet one hundred and seventy-one. The Town/City was listed as Loudonville. She testified that
she knew Loudonville was in the County of Albany and was not part of the lO5 Assembly
District. She indicated that she did not cross the signature out because she was told to leave it
unaltered by Brian Quail.
In response to questions regarding sheet numbers seventy-four, she acknowledged that
she had missed two signatures, lines twelve and thirteen, that should have been crossed out
because the signers had not appeared before her. She further testified that she thought she had
crossed the signatures out. In response to questioning from the Court, Mrs. Santabarbara
testified that she believed that an individual named Bertie Dionni had signed for the individuals
(Dionni’s daughter and son-in-law) on lines twelve and thirteen.
Mrs. Santabarbara was then asked about sheet number one hundred and ninety-eight.
Line ten included a signature along with the letters POA. She testified that because the person
indicated that she had authority to sign, Mrs. Santabarbara put the letters POA next to the
signature after the signer identified herself as a daughter signing on behalf of her mother, over
whom she allegedly held power of attorney. Mrs. Santabarbara also testified that Brian Quail had
instructed her that “out of district” signatures could be left in because they would not be counted.
No other witnesses were called in this proceeding.
Petitioners’ counsel summarized their fraud allegations as consisting of: 1) respondent
Santabarbara’s collection of 90 out-of-district signatures out of his 567 collected signatures; 2)
respondent Santabarbara’s addition of information to the nominating petition as well as his
alterations, changes, etc., to information in the nominating petition; and 3) Mrs. Santabarbara’s
admissions regarding three signatures. In terms of changes/alterations, counsel added that on
three occasions [sheet 8 line 13; sheet 12 line 8; and sheet 162 line 15] respondent Santabarbara
-6-
had changed the TownlCity without initialing the change. Respondent Santabarbara’s counsel
argued that there was no indicia of fraud or any intent to defraud or deceive. In sum, counsel
maintained that there had not been a requisite showing of fraud on the part of either Santabarbara
or his wife such as to sustain invalidation of the nominating petition |
Logged
