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: SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., doing business as J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered February 8, 2005, which dismissed this proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, for failure to join a necessary party, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Necessary parties are those “who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action” (CPLR 1001[a] ). In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the governmental agency that performed the challenged action must be a named party (see Matter of McNeill v. Town Bd. of Town of Ithaca, 260 A.D.2d 829, 688 N.Y.S.2d 747 [1999], affd. 93 N.Y.2d 812, 695 N.Y.S.2d 540, 717 N.E.2d 699 [1999] ).
In seeking vacatur of the decision of the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB), petitioner named only the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), whose contract it had allegedly breached (see Headriver, LLC v. Town Bd. of Town of Riverhead, 2 N.Y.3d 766, 780 N.Y.S.2d 505, 813 N.E.2d 585 [2004] ). Given this omission, petitioner seeks leave to proceed without CDRB, pursuant to CPLR 1001(b). While petitioner has no further remedy, and DEP does not claim prejudice, CDRB is still an indispensable party to this proceeding. The failure to join CDRB within the statutory period resulted solely from attorney error, which is not one of the “rare case” factors enumerated in § 1001(b) militating in favor of allowing this proceeding to continue (cf. Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 N.Y.3d 452, 805 N.Y.S.2d 525, 839 N.E.2d 878 [2005] ).
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.
Decided: May 02, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)