Opinion
Index No. 035923/2024 Motion Nos. 1 2
10-10-2024
LAUREN WOHL and AIDEN ROWAN, Petitioners, v. ROCKLAND COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Respondent, and ROCKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION AND ORDER
HON. KEITH J. CORNELL, A.J.S.C.
Before the Court is the petitioners' petition seeking to invalidate the filling of vacancies on the respondent. Rockland County Republican Committee ("RCRC"). RCRC has moved to dismiss the petition. The matter came on to be heard on October 9, 2024.
The following documents have been read and considered: NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1-21.
The petition was filed on September 26, 2024, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The petition alleges that "beginning September 23, 2024, and in violation of the election law, Respondent began filing [sic] vacancies in the county committee in order to ensure that the incumbents will have a better chance of staying in power at the 2024 organizational meeting."
MOTION TO DISMISS-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
The RCRC filed a motion to dismiss, first arguing that the petition is time-barred. RCRC argues that on September 16, 2024, the RCRC Executive Committee held a meeting and appointed persons to fill vacancies on the RCRC. RCRC argues that while the petitioners filed the petition on September 26, 2024, the petition was not served until the next day on September 27. 2024. Thus, argues RCRC, the initiation of the action is time-barred because petitioners had only ten (10) days within which to commence the actions and they missed their deadline by one (1) day. RCRC argues that Election Law 16-102(2) establishes the applicable 10-day statute of limitations. The relevant language reads:
A proceeding with respect to a primary, convention, meeting of a party committee, or caucus shall be instituted within ten days after the holding of such primary or convention or the filing of the certificate of nominations made at such caucus or meeting of a party committee. (Election Law 16-102(2)).
Here, the question is from what moment does the statute begin to run? Clearly, in the case of a primary or convention, the statute runs 10 days after that event. On the other hand, in the case of a caucus or meeting of a party committee, the Election Law provides that the period of limitations begins to run from "the filing of the certificate of nominations made at such caucus or meeting of a party committee" (Election Law 16-102 (2)). According to the RCRC's reading of the law, the ten (10) days ran from the holding of the meeting.
Petitioners counter that Election Law 16-102(2) does not apply because it deals only with four events which result in nominations or designations of candidates for public office or party positions, not to the holding of a party committee meeting (or, as here, an executive committee meeting) for the conduct of business other than such nominations or designations.
DISCUSSION
A plain reading of Election Law 16-102(2) makes it clear that the 10-day limitations period is not addressed to a part}' committee meeting other than one at which nominations or designations arc made. The Court of Appeals, in Kosowski v. Donovan, 18 N.Y.3d 686, which dealt not with a challenged to the filling of committee vacancies, but with a county committee's election of officers sheds light on the question. The Court wrote:
We have stated that a petition challenging "the validity" of a county committee must be commenced "within 10 days after the ... organizational meeting of the Committee, at the latest" (Sack v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 65 N.Y.2d 958, 959, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 483 N.E.2d 1152 [1985], citing Election Law $ 16-102[2]; see also Matter of Flynn v, Olma, 286 A.D.2d 568, 568, 730 N.Y.S.2d 592 [4th Dept.2001], Iv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 718, 732 N.Y.S.2d 630, 758 N.E.2d 656 [2001]; Matter of Valin v. Adamczyk, 286 A.D.2d 566, 730 N.Y.S.2d 464 [4th Dept. 2001], Iv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 718, 732 N.Y.S.2d 630, 758 N.E.2d 656 [2001]; Matter of Stabile v. DeFronzo, 231 A.D.2d 577, 577, 647 N.Y.S.2d 36 [2d Dept. 1996]). While a case can be made that the 10-day period should apply to party meetings that select candidates for public office, and not to meetings that only select party officers (see Town of Islip Town Comm, of Conservative Party of N.Y. State v. Leo, 71 A.D.2d 624, 625. 418 N.Y.S.2d 148 [2d Dept.1979] ["Section 16-102 of the Election Law imposes a short limitation of 10 days in order to meet the exigencies of preparing ballots and conducting elections for public office"]), we do not adopt that view. The statute undoubtedly provides for challenging people elected for "party position" (Election Law § 16-102[1]), and to interpret it to remain silent as to the statutory period would mean that a significantly longer one would apply (e.g., petitioners suggest the four-month period for CPLR Article 78 proceedings [CPLR 217 ]). The 10-day period is sensible and consistent with the Legislature's avowed purpose when it amended section 16-102(2) in 1986 to include committee meetings-i.e., "to compute the time within which to commence a legal proceeding to be measured not only from the holding of a primary election, caucus, or convention, but to include ... a meeting of a party committee" (Mem. in Support, Bill Jacket, L. 1986, ch. 710, at 5).
Thus, the Court of Appeals has clearly adopted the interpretation that it is from the organizational meeting that the 10-day limitations period to challenge the validity of the committee's make-up runs. This is the only logical interpretation, given that it is the organizational meeting which is the event where officers are elected and official business may be conducted.
Based upon this analysis, this Court finds that the petitioners are well-within their time to commence this action. Therefore, with respect to that branch of RCRC's motion to dismiss on the basis of untimeliness, that branch will be denied.
MERI TS OF PETITIONERS' CLAIM
Turning to the merits of the petition, petitioners argue that the RCRC has violated both the Election Law and its internal rules. Following the June 25, 2024 primary election, the RCRC Executive Committee conducted a meeting on September 16, 2024 and, apparently, filled 46 committee vacancies. The Second Department has made it clear that between the primary election and the organizational meeting, the county committee is not permitted to fill vacancies (sec Matter of Auerbach v Suffolk County Comm, of the Conservative Party of NY State, 159 A.D.3d 695, 696 [2d Dept 2018]; see also Matter of Brocato v Tinari. 157 A.D.3d 782, 784 [2d Dept 2018]).
To quote extensively from Auerbach:
The petitioner Kenneth A. Auerbach, as a conservative committeeman and nominated candidate for the position of Chairman of the Suffolk County Committee of the Conservative Party and the other individual petitioners, as conservative committeemen in certain election districts of the Town of Brookhaven, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 against the 2014 Executive Committee and others. They alleged, inter alia, that the 2014 Executive Committee violated the Election Law by filling the vacancies in the 2016 County Committee. They sought a judgment declaring the organizational meeting and the certificate of nomination invalid. Certain respondents moved to dismiss the petition. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the petitioners appeal.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, Election Law § 6-148 does not confer upon the Executive Committee of the Suffolk County Committee of the Conservative Party of New York State the authority to fill vacancies in the county committee. Rather, that statute relates to filling vacancies in designations and nominations of candidates, not members of a political party's county committee. The filling of vacancies in a political party's county committee is governed by Election Law § 2-118. which provides, in pertinent part, that, in the case of a failure to elect a member of the committee, the vacancy created thereby shall be filled by the remaining members of the committee. Therefore, only the 2016 County Committee had the authority to fill the subject vacancies.
With the election of the 2016 County Committee in the primary election, the county committee that was elected in 2014 had no further official authority, and no rule of that county committee could extend the authority of its executive committee to continue to exercise functions in substantial matters after the members of the 2016 County Committee had been elected (see Matter of Brocato v Tinari, 157 A.D.3d 782 [20181; see also Matter of Torchin v Cohen, 286 NY 544 [1941]; Matter of Mazur v Kelly, 170 A.D.2d 1037, 1038 [1991]; Matter of Bauman v Fusco, 21 A.D.2d 470, 472 [1964]). The filling of vacancies for the 2016 County Committee was a "substantial matter," and therefore the actions of the 2014 Executive Committee in filling vacancies in the 2016 County Committee were improper (see Matter of Brocato v Tinari, 157 A.D.3d 782 [2018]; Matter of Mazur v. Kelly, 170 A.D.2d at 1038).
Similarly, here, the 2024 committee is the body empowered to fill vacancies and not the 2022 Executive Committee. Like in Auerbach, the RCRC Executive Committee had no further official authority after the June primary. Thus, the purported filling of vacancies by the Executive Committee was contrary to its authority and must be annulled.
Any claims of the parties not expressly addressed above arc deemed either without merit or unnecessary to address for purposes of this Court's determination.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, that the Respondent, RCRC's motion is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further, ORDERED, that any purported filling of RCRC vacancies on or after June 25, 2024, shall be deemed null and void; and it is further, ORDERED, that to the extent that the Respondent Rockland County Board of Elections has recorded, filed or otherwise recognized the filling of RCRC vacancies on or after June 25. 2024. the Rockland County Board of Elections is hereby directed to modify, amend or otherwise correct its records to void any and all such records so as to assure that all of the persons purportedly filling the above-referenced vacancies shall be reflected as not being valid members of the RCRC; and it is further, ORDERED, that the RCRC is prohibited, restrained, and enjoined from the purported filling of any committee vacancies unless and until a duly called organizational meeting of the 2024 committee is held.
The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.