Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: PETER W. LOEHR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. DR. BONITA DURAND, INTERIM PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BUFFALO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to compel respondent to provide certain documents sought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law ([FOIL] Public Officers Law art 6). Petitioner appeals from a judgment that dismissed the petition and amendments. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Supreme Court properly granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failing to name a necessary party.
A party whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486, 490 [1979]; Matter of Spence v Cahill, 300 AD2d 992, 992-993 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 1 NY3d 508 [2004]). Here, we conclude that the State University of New York (SUNY) FOIL Appeals Office is a necessary party inasmuch as it made the final determinations as to petitioner's FOIL requests (see generally Matter of A&F Scaccia Realty Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 200 AD3d 875, 877 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of McNeill v Town Bd. of Town of Ithaca, 260 AD2d 829, 830 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 812 [1999]) and that respondent is not a proper party because she did not render the final determinations as to petitioner's FOIL requests (see Matter of La Russo v Neuringer, 105 AD3d 743, 744 [2d Dept 2013]; see also Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 163 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2018]). In light of petitioner's failure to include a necessary party, the petition was properly dismissed (see Spence, 300 AD2d at 992-993; McNeill, 260 AD2d at 829). Finally, we deny petitioner’s request to add the necessary party or parties inasmuch as the statute of limitations has expired (see generally Matter of Lodge v D’Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]).
Entered: March 20, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1019
Decided: March 20, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)