Opinion
2016–02567 Index No. 15167/15
04-24-2019
In the Matter of Richard H. WARDEN, et al., Appellants, v. SOUTHAMPTON TOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC., Respondent; State of New York, Nonparty-Respondent.
Richard H. Warden and Olga Warden, Southampton, NY, appellants pro se. Harris Beach, PLLC, Buffalo, N.Y. (Richard T. Sullivan and Christopher H. Feldman of counsel), for respondent. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and David Lawrence III of counsel), for nonparty -respondent.
Richard H. Warden and Olga Warden, Southampton, NY, appellants pro se.
Harris Beach, PLLC, Buffalo, N.Y. (Richard T. Sullivan and Christopher H. Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and David Lawrence III of counsel), for nonparty -respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated June 29, 2015, that there was no probable cause to believe that the respondent, Southampton Town Newspapers, Inc., discriminated against the petitioners on the basis of familial status, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Hudson, J.), dated January 5, 2015. The order granted the respondent's motion, and the nonparty-respondent's separate motion, to dismiss the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Executive Law § 298, the petitioners sought review of a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated June 29, 2015, that there was no probable cause to believe that the respondent, Southampton Town Newspapers, Inc., discriminated against the petitioners on the basis of familial status. The respondent and the nonparty-respondent, State of New York, separately moved to dismiss the proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners failed to join the New York State Division of Human Rights as a necessary party. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the motions.
"A ‘court may at any stage of a case and on its own motion determine whether there is a nonjoinder of necessary parties’ " ( Matter of Rumman v. Duane Reade, 64 A.D.3d 715, 715, 881 N.Y.S.2d 905, quoting Matter of Lezette v. Board of Educ. Hudson City School Dist., 35 N.Y.2d 272, 282, 360 N.Y.S.2d 869, 319 N.E.2d 189 ). A proceeding to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights "shall be commenced by the filing of a notice of petition and petition naming as respondents the State Division of Human Rights and all other parties appearing in the proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights" ( 22 NYCRR 202.57 [a] ).
Here, although the petitioners attempted to join the New York State Division of Human Rights by amending the petition, they failed to obtain leave of the court to do so, rendering the amendment a nullity (see Matter of Czajka v. Dellehunt , 125 A.D.3d 1177, 1181, 5 N.Y.S.3d 318 ; Matter of Barrett v. Dutchess County Legislature , 38 A.D.3d 651, 653, 831 N.Y.S.2d 540 ; Matter of Board of Educ. of Florida Union Free School Dist. v. DePace , 301 A.D.2d 521, 522, 753 N.Y.S.2d 381 ). Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the failure to timely join the New York State Division of Human Rights requires dismissal of the proceeding (see Matter of Myers v. Baisley , 65 A.D.3d 649, 650, 883 N.Y.S.2d 731 ; Matter of Rumman v. Reade , 64 A.D.3d at 715, 881 N.Y.S.2d 905 ; Matter of Massapequa Auto Salvage, Inc. v. Donaldson , 40 A.D.3d 647, 648, 835 N.Y.S.2d 419 ). The petitioners' status as pro se litigants did not entitle them to any rights greater than those of any other litigants (see Stewart v. ARC Dev., LLC , 138 A.D.3d 413, 414, 27 N.Y.S.3d 862 ; Matter of Correnti v. Suffolk County Dist. Attorney's Off. , 34 A.D.3d 578, 580, 824 N.Y.S.2d 382 ; Brooks v. Inn at Saratoga Assn. , 188 A.D.2d 921, 921, 591 N.Y.S.2d 625 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the respondent's motion, and the nonparty-respondent's separate motion, to dismiss the proceeding.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.