Opinion
August 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Spain, J.).
The essence of the petition and this appeal is petitioners' initial argument that Supreme Court erred in holding that the failure to join the Republican State Committee as a party respondent mandated dismissal of the petition. We disagree. CPLR 1001 (a) requires that all persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment shall be made parties, and CPLR 1003 provides for dismissal for failure to join a necessary party. It can hardly be gainsaid that, if successful, the instant challenge to section 18 of the rules of the Republican State Committee (also known as "Party Call" rule) resulting in the invalidation of the method of selection of its delegates to the Judicial District Convention would inequitably affect the Republican State Committee, and that therefore the Republican State Committee was a necessary party whose nonjoinder required dismissal (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Fulani v. Smith, 181 A.D.2d 940, 941, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 755; Matter of Castracan v. Colavita, 173 A.D.2d 924, 925, appeal dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1041; Matter of Rizzo v. Withers, 158 A.D.2d 497, 498; Matter of Curcio v. Wolf, 133 A.D.2d 188, 189; cf., Matter of Seaman v. Bird, 176 A.D.2d 1061; Matter of Michaels v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 154 A.D.2d 873).
Petitioners' argument that this proceeding is governed by Election Law § 16-102 and that the provisions of the CPLR are not controlling is meritless (see, CPLR 103 [a], [b]).
Having held that the petition in this proceeding was properly dismissed on procedural grounds, it is unnecessary to address petitioners' several remaining arguments.
Cardona, P.J., White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.