Opinion
No. 2021-01211 Index No. 524201/20
06-15-2022
David Stein, et al., respondents, v. Kings County Democratic County Committee, appellant.
Abrams Fensterman, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Robert A. Spolzino, David A. House, and Lisa Colosi Florio of counsel), for appellant. Balestriere Fariello, New York, NY (Vittoria M. Fariello, John G. Balestriere, and Matthew W. Schmidt of counsel), for respondents.
Abrams Fensterman, LLP, Brooklyn, NY (Robert A. Spolzino, David A. House, and Lisa Colosi Florio of counsel), for appellant.
Balestriere Fariello, New York, NY (Vittoria M. Fariello, John G. Balestriere, and Matthew W. Schmidt of counsel), for respondents.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring null and void a certain amendment to the Rules for the Government of the Kings County Democratic County Committee adopted by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic County Committee and the filling of certain vacancies in the Kings County Democratic County Committee by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic County Committee, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), dated December 10, 2020. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint and declared null and void a certain amendment to the Rules for the Government of the Kings County Democratic County Committee adopted by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic County Committee and the filling of certain vacancies in the Kings County Democratic County Committee by the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic County Committee.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint is granted.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, it should have granted dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiffs challenged the authority and actions of the Executive Committee of the Kings County Democratic County Committee but failed to join the Executive Committee as a necessary party (see CPLR 1001[a]; Matter of Morgan v de Blasio, 29 N.Y.3d 559, 560; Matter of Jacobellis v Fonseca, 43 A.D.3d 484, 485; Matter of Cornicelli v Scannell, 307 A.D.2d 1006, 1006; Matter of Schaffer v Withers, 186 A.D.2d 836, 836; Matter of Rizzo v Withers, 158 A.D.2d 497, 498; cf. Matter of Marafito v McDonough, 153 A.D.3d 1123, 1125; Matter of New York State Comm. of the Independence Party v New York State Bd. of Elections, 87 A.D.3d 806, 808, 811).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, CHRISTOPHER and FORD, JJ., concur.