Opinion
10-17-2023
Eddie GIBBS, Plaintiff, v. MANHATTAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY - NEW YORK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, Nina Saxon, Marlin Ruiz, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Debra Busacco, Defendant.
Advocates for Justice, New York City (Arthur Z. Schwartz of counsel), for petitioner. Bedford Soumas LLP, New York City (Gregory C. Soumas of counsel), for Manhattan Democratic Party—New York County Democratic Committee, respondent. Ali Najmi, New York City, for Nina Saxon and others, respondents.
Advocates for Justice, New York City (Arthur Z. Schwartz of counsel), for petitioner.
Bedford Soumas LLP, New York City (Gregory C. Soumas of counsel), for Manhattan Democratic Party—New York County Democratic Committee, respondent.
Ali Najmi, New York City, for Nina Saxon and others, respondents.
Frank P. Nervo, J.
The parties here allege a litany of procedural errors in the service of this action, the denial of service, and the joinder—or lack thereof—of necessary parties. Indeed, these arguments comprise the bulk of oral argument and the parties’ post-argument submissions. Ordinarily it would be proper for this Court to first adjudicate these jurisdictional claims; however, it need not do so here as denial of the petition on the merits is required. Put simply, these jurisdictional arguments dwarf the issue raised in the petition and, given that the petition must be denied on its merits, judicial efficiency is best served by addressing the merits—notwithstanding jurisdictional arguments.
[1] The issued raised by the petition here is straightforward, whether a quorum was established at the meeting where the elections of, inter alia, the Democratic District Leaders for the 68th Assembly District occurred. There is no dispute that 84 committee seats exist in the 68th Assembly District and that the majority of those seats were vacant. (see e.g. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4 and 8, meeting attendance sheet with 34 members). The Court finds that Election Law § 2-104 and the Rules and Regulations of the New York County Democratic Committee are dispositive of the issue whether a quorum was established.
Election Law § 2-104(3) provides, in relevant part:
… a county committee of a party shall be legally constituted if twenty-five per centum of the committeemen required to be elected in such county, as provided in subdivision one of this section, have been elected.
Article IV(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the New York County Democratic Committee provides:
At such meeting each such Divisional Assembly District Committee shall elect a Chairperson, a Secretary and such other officers as the Committee may determine, and may adopt rules not inconsistent with these Rules and Regulations. Pending the adoption of rules, a quorum at a meeting of any such Committee shall consist of 20% of the members thereof, required to be elected in such assembly district part, present in person, by the rules of such Committee when adopted may vary the aforesaid quorum requirement.
Therefore, pursuant to Election Law § 2-104(3), the total number of committee members "required to be elected" is 25% of the 84 committee seats, which amounts to 21 members. Article IV(b) of the party’s rules declares a quorum to be 20% of the members "required to be elected", in this case 20% of the aforementioned 21 members, which amounts to five members.
Calculations resulting in a fraction of a person have been rounded up to the nearest full person.
Here, it is undisputed that more than five members were present at the subject meeting and, therefore, a quorum was established and the petition, alleging insufficient attendance to constitute a quorum, must be denied.
Whilst an argument might be heard that five members of the 84 seats designed for the county committee of this assembly district is sufficient to form a quorum is unjust, inherently inconsistent with democratic principles, or otherwise inexplicable, the reality is this framework of rules and statutes recognizes the challenges often presented to the recruitment and election of committed county committee candidates, as well as procuring their subsequent personal appearances at organizational meetings, such as the meeting under examination here. To the extent the process may well be orchestrated for political gain or advantage, there is no remedy available by means of this petition. To be sure, there is no evidence of any such ill-intent by any party to this matter. The Court is confident each party before it seeks only to continue their service in the best interests of the constituency of the 68th Assembly District, and shall continue to expend their best efforts on behalf of their constituency for the foreseeable future. This Court is confident that all New York State Assembly Districts would be fortunate to have a similar abundance of dedicated participants in the political process as enjoyed by the 68th Assembly District.
[2] To the extent that petitioner seeks to discontinue this action same is improper (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 34, 35, and 36). Here, the parties have completed oral argument and post-argument submissions. Furthermore, respondent has an interest in the judicial determination of this matter and is prejudiced by the discontinuance on the eve of the Court resolving the entirety of this special proceeding (see e.g. CPLR § 3217[b]; Baez v. Parkway Mobile Homes, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 905, 5 N.Y.S.3d 154 [2d Dept. 2015]). Finally, and most importantly, the public interest in the resolution of the issues raised by petitioner requires denial of petitioner’s discontinuance. Indeed, the questions raised by this election law petition are fundamental to our way of self-government and discontinuance, under these circumstances, must be denied (see Monplaisir v. Katz, 26 A.D.2d 804, 273 N.Y.S.2d 839 [1st Dept. 1966]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the petition is denied and the matter is dismissed.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.