Wohl v. Miller

9 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Ruiz v. Black, Giagnacova

    468 N.E.2d 1117 (N.Y. 1984)

    Raymond Harding for respondents. Order affirmed, without costs (see Matter of Brosnan v Black, 63 N.Y.2d 692, and Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 N.Y.2d 687 [decided herewith]). Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE.

  2. In re Goodman

    87 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition to invalidate is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed. Petitioners raising a challenge under Election Law ยง 16-102 must complete service on all necessary parties ( see Matter of McDonough v Scannapieco, 65 AD3d 647, 648). Failure to serve a party mentioned in an order to show cause requires dismissal, even as to those parties who were properly served, if the party not served is a necessary party to the proceeding ( see Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 NY2d 687, 688). Here, as the candidates whose names appeared on the challenged designating petition, the appellants were necessary parties ( see Swirsky v Smallwood, 148 AD2d 523), and the petitioners' failure to properly serve the appellants warranted dismissal of the proceeding as jurisdictionally defective ( see Matter of DiRoberto v Napoli, 247 AD2d 646).

  3. In the Matter of Mona R. Goodman v. Nassau County Bd. of Elections

    87 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    ORDERED that the final order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition to invalidate is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed. Petitioners raising a challenge under Election Law ยง 16โ€“102 must complete service on all necessary parties ( see Matter of McDonough v. Scannapieco, 65 A.D.3d 647, 648, 883 N.Y.S.2d 906). Failure to serve a party mentioned in an order to show cause requires dismissal, even as to those parties who were properly served, if the party not served is a necessary party to the proceeding ( see Matter of Wohl v. Miller, 63 N.Y.2d 687, 688, 479 N.Y.S.2d 973, 468 N.E.2d 1110). Here, as the candidates whose names appeared on the challenged designating petition, the appellants were necessary parties ( see Swirsky v. Smallwood, 148 A.D.2d 523, 540 N.Y.S.2d 177), and the petitioners' failure to properly serve the appellants warranted dismissal of the proceeding as jurisdictionally defective ( see Matter of DiRoberto v. Napoli, 247 A.D.2d 646, 670 N.Y.S.2d 314).

  4. Goodman v. Nassau Cnty. Bd. of Elections

    2011-07242 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 17, 2011)

    Petitioners raising a challenge under Election Law ยง 16-102 must complete service on all necessary parties (see Matter of McDonough v Scannapieco, 65 AD3d 647, 648). Failure to serve a party mentioned in an order to show cause requires dismissal, even as to those parties who were properly served, if the party not served is a necessary party to the proceeding (see Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 NY2d 687, 688). Here, as the candidates whose names appeared on the challenged designating petition, the appellants were necessary parties (see Swirsky v Smallwood, 148 AD2d 523), and the petitioners' failure to properly serve the appellants warranted dismissal of the proceeding as jurisdictionally defective (see Matter of DiRoberto v Napoli, 247 AD2d 646).

  5. Venuti v. Westchester

    43 A.D.3d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 18 times

    Moreover, there is no indication in the record that Daly had been duly designated as an agent for service upon Scattaretico-Naber ( see CPLR 318). Accordingly, all necessary parties to the proceeding having been served as required by the order to show cause, there was no basis upon which to dismiss the proceeding ( see Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 NY2d 687; Matter of Tinari v Berger, supra). The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the merits of the proceeding in the alternative, properly determined that five of the signatures on Scattaretico-Naber's designating petition should be stricken as duplicative of earlier signatures on the designating petition of another candidate for the same public office.

  6. Matter of Watt v. Town of Gaines

    140 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 8 times

    Thus, the Planning Board is a necessary party if the denial of petitioner's application is to be reviewed (see, CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Commco, Inc. v Amelkin, 62 N.Y.2d 260, 263; Phillips v Village of Oriskany, 57 A.D.2d 110, 113; Matter of D.J.R. Dev. Corp. v Town Bd., 47 A.D.2d 986, 987). Petitioner's remaining claims alleged in the original petition (denominated arguments 1, 2, 3 and 5) which challenge the zoning ordinance on various grounds should not be dismissed because with respect to these claims the town is the proper party and was timely served (see, Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 N.Y.2d 687, 688; D.B.C.G., Inc. v Town of Ramapo, 97 A.D.2d 533). The amended petition was properly dismissed because it was served beyond the stipulated extension period, and respondent properly raised the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations in its amended answer.

  7. Klamner v. Rockland County Board of Elections

    133 A.D.2d 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

    Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We find that the failure of the petitioner to serve all necessary parties by mail within the 14-day period required by Election Law ยง 16-102 (2) constitutes a fatal defect (see, Matter of Wohl v. Miller, 63 N.Y.2d 687; Matter of Curcio v. Wolf, 133 A.D.2d 188 [decided herewith]; Matter of Moore v. Milhim, 109 A.D.2d 810; Matter of Floyd v. Coveney, 83 A.D.2d 897; Matter of Buhlmann v. LeFever, 83 A.D.2d 895, affd 54 N.Y.2d 775). We have examined the remainder of the petitioner's contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit.

  8. Matter of Stendardo v. Steinfeldt

    105 A.D.2d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

    Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly dismissed the petition for failure to join a necessary party (see Matter of McGoey v Black, 100 A.D.2d 635, 636; cf. Matter of Wohl v Miller, 63 N.Y.2d 687).

  9. Bothwell v. Bernstein

    64 Misc. 3d 1202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Notwithstanding such a claim, if any relief is to be granted in a fraud proceeding, it would generally only be granted against parties actually named anyway. Matter ofBuchanan v. Espada , 88 NY2d 973 (1996) ; Matter of Mandell v. Board of Elections in City of NY , 88 NY2d 976 (1996) ; Matter of Wohl v. Miller, 63 NY2d 687 (1984). Because this is an invalidation proceeding based upon alleged fraud, the relief granted would be limited to those Respondent candidates properly named and served.