Opinion
09-06-2017
In the Matter of Alfonso DAVIS and Anne Williams, Petitioners–Appellants, v. Dustin CZARNY and Michele Sardo, as Commissioners of Board of Elections, Respondents–Respondents. Heidi Teska, Respondent.
I. Aurora Flores, Syracuse, for Petitioners–Appellants. Robert A. Durr, County Attorney, Syracuse (Benjamin M. Yaus of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
I. Aurora Flores, Syracuse, for Petitioners–Appellants.
Robert A. Durr, County Attorney, Syracuse (Benjamin M. Yaus of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND LINDLEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioners appeal from a judgment dismissing their petition in this proceeding pursuant to Election Law article 16 seeking to nullify respondents' determination invalidating their designations as candidates in the Democratic primary election for the offices of Mayor of the City of Syracuse and Commissioner of Education of the City of Syracuse. Contrary to petitioners' contention, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition based on their failure to name and serve a necessary party, i.e., the objector to petitioners' joint designating petition. It is undisputed that petitioners received adequate and timely notice of the objector's identity, and "thus [their] failure to name the objector as a party renders this proceeding defective" (Matter of Plochocki v. Onondaga County Bd. of Elections, 21 A.D.3d 710, 710, 800 N.Y.S.2d 257 ; see Matter of Gadsen v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 57 N.Y.2d 751, 752, 454 N.Y.S.2d 982, 440 N.E.2d 1329 ; Matter of Wein v. Molinari, 51 N.Y.2d 717, 718–719, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 410 N.E.2d 1229 ). Although petitioners contend that the court erred in failing to "weigh[ ] the statutory factors set forth in CPLR 1001(b) to determine whether [they] should be permitted to proceed in the absence of [the objector]" (see generally Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 N.Y.3d 452, 457–458, 805 N.Y.S.2d 525, 839 N.E.2d 878 ), that specific contention is raised for the first time on appeal, and we therefore do not consider it (see Matter of Vescera v. Stewart, 120 A.D.3d 990, 992, 991 N.Y.S.2d 378, lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 901, 2014 WL 4345708 ).
In view of our determination, we do not address petitioners' remaining contentions.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.