Opinion
No. 14–14327.
08-05-2014
In the Matter of the Application of Rosemary FRITZ, as, Petitioner–Objector, and Joseph L. Fritz, as a Candidate–Agrieved, Petitioners, v. Adrienne ESPOSITO, as, Respondent–Candidate, and Richard H. Schaffer, as Presiding Officer and Deborah Monaco, as Secretary of the Suffolk County Democratic Party who Issued Certification of Authorization, and Anita Katz and Wayne T. Rogers, being the Commissioners of the Board of Elections of the County of Suffolk, Respondents.
Joseph L. Fritz, Esq., East Islip, Attorney for the Petitioners. Sanford Neil Berland, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC, Dix Hills, Attorney for Respondent Candidate. Keith M. Corbett, Esq., Suffolk County Department of Law, Uniondale, Attorney for Schaffer & Monaco. Gail M. Lolis, Esq., Hauppauge, NY, Attorney for the County.
Joseph L. Fritz, Esq., East Islip, Attorney for the Petitioners.
Sanford Neil Berland, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC, Dix Hills, Attorney for Respondent Candidate.
Keith M. Corbett, Esq., Suffolk County Department of Law, Uniondale, Attorney for Schaffer & Monaco.
Gail M. Lolis, Esq., Hauppauge, NY, Attorney for the County.
Opinion
JOSEPH A. SANTORELLI, J.
In this proceeding petitioner objector Rosemary Fritz and candidate aggrieved Joseph L. Fritz seek an order: (1) declaring insufficient, defective, invalid, and void the Designating Petition, Certificate of Authorization and Certificate of Acceptance filed with respondent Suffolk County Board of Elections authorizing the designation of respondent candidate Adrienne Esposito as candidate for the public office of State Senator, 3rd Senatorial District, in the primary election to be held on September 9, 2014; (2) directing, requiring and commanding respondent Board of Elections not to place and/or print the name of respondent candidate as candidate of the Democratic Party for the public office of State Senator, 3rd Senatorial District, on the official ballots to be used in the primary election to be held on September 9, 2014; and (3) declaring the Designating Petition, Certificate of Authorization and the certificate filed with the respondent Board of Elections designating the respondent candidate as candidate of the Democratic Party for the public office of State Senator, 3rd Senatorial District, on the official ballots to be used in the primary election to be held on September 9, 2014, a ity and reversing any contrary determination by the respondent Board of Elections.
In sum, the petitioners claim that the issuance of the Certificate of Authorization fails to comply with Election Law § 6–120 in that it was not authorized by members of the Democratic Party Committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which the designation was made since the Democratic Party convention where such authorizations are made was never held. Further, the petitioners allege that the alternative method to issue a Certificate of Authorization, as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee was not complied with. The petitioners assert, upon information and belief, that the meeting of the Presiding Officer and Secretary of the Suffolk County Democratic Party Executive Committee which authorized the issuance of the Certificate of Authorization was not properly constituted or duly authorized by the Executive Committee of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee. Finally the petitioners contend that the Certificate of Acceptance filed by the respondent candidate was executed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Authorization and thus was not properly executed.
The respondents have served and filed answers to the petition. On July 30, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the matter and reserved decision. The parties were given until August 4, 2014, at 12:00pm to serve and file any additional papers.
In opposition to the petition, the respondents raise various arguments in support of their request for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Preliminarily the respondents contend that the petition must be dismissed because the petitioners have failed to name the members of the Executive Committee of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee as parties to this proceeding.
In opposition, the petitioners argue that the members of the Executive Committee were not necessary parties.
In this matter the petitioners are challenging the propriety of the actions taken by the Executive Committee in delegating their authority to respondent Schaffer, as its subcommittee to confer a Certificate of Authorization. As such the members of the Executive Committee were necessary parties to this proceeding and the failure to join them as parties is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal (see, Matter of Schaffer v. Withers, 186 A.D.2d 836;Matter of Rizzo v. Withers, 158 A.D.2d 497;Matter of Curcio v. Wolf, 133 A.D.2d 188).
The respondents further contend that the proceeding should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the petitioners have failed to name the other two candidates named in the Certificate of Authorization as parties to this proceeding.
In opposition the petitioners urge that they have named all necessary parties.
In a situation such as this where the rights of a challenged respondent are inextricably interwoven with the rights of other individuals who are not challenged, the failure to join those other individuals forms a jurisdictional impediment to the proceeding (see, Matter of Gadsen v. Board of Elections of the City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 751;Matter of Greenspan v. O'Rourke, 27 N.Y.2d 846).
Based upon the foregoing the respondents' motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is granted and the petition is dismissed.
In any event, was the Court to reach the substantive issues in this proceeding, it would conclude that there is no merit to the petitioners' contentions.
To briefly recapitulate, the petitioners herein take issue with the manner in which the Certificate of Authorization was granted to respondent Esposito. In the memorandum submitted by the petitioners they request
[A]n opportunity to conduct a hearing to make certain that the public was given a fair shake in the proceedings. Political Leaders should not have the opportunity to game the system and then ask for the usual safeguards when they are asked in court to justify their actions.
Wherefore the Petitioners asks for continuance of the hearing with the appearance of the two subpoenaed individuals [Respondents Schaffer and Monaco], with the materials requested.
Wherefore it is also requested that the hearing not be held until the time when the information requested is provided to the petitioners.
“Internal issues arising within political parties are best resolved within the party organization itself and judicial involvement should only be undertaken as a last resort.” (Matter of Bachmann v. Coyne, 99 A.D.2d 742;see, also, Lehrer v. Cavallo, 43 AD3d 1059). “Judicial intervention is only warranted upon a clear showing that a party or its leaders have violated [the Election Law] or the party's own rules adopted in accordance with law, or otherwise [have] violat[ed] the rights of party members or the electorate” (Harding v. Harrington, 127 Misc.2d 5, 5–6,affd 104 A.D.2d 544;see, also, Matter of Wong v. Cooke, 87 AD3d 659).
The Court has reviewed the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee dated January 9, 2014, the Rules and Regulations of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee and the Certificate of Authorization. The Court has also heard the arguments of counsel and reviewed the memoranda of law submitted by the parties. Clearly the issues raised by the petitioners involve internal party politics that do not warrant judicial invention.
The petitioners' remaining contentions are similarly without merit.
The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.