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: Thomas J. JACOBELLIS, et al., appellants, v. Joseph J. FONSECA, et al., respondents-respondents, et al., respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate petitions designating Joseph J. Fonseca, Joseph A. D'Ambrosio, Paul F. Spiegel, Patricia E. Ploeger, Scott Y. Auster, David Spittal, Wendy M. Whetsel, Michael L. Fila, Catherine Croft, and John F. Riley as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 18, 2007, for the nomination of the Working Families Party as its candidates for the public offices of Town Justice of the Town of Carmel, Council Member of the Town of Kent, Council Member of the Town of Patterson, Town Justice of the Town of Patterson, Council Member of the Town of Putnam Valley, Supervisor of the Town of Putnam Valley, Highway Superintendent of the Town of Southeast, Clerk of the Town of Southeast, and Council Member of the Town of Southeast, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), dated August 10, 2007, which granted the motion of Joseph J. Fonseca, Joseph A. D'Ambrosio, Paul F. Spiegel, Patricia E. Ploeger, Scott Y. Auster, David Spittal, Wendy M. Whetsel, Michael L. Fila, Catherine Croft, and John F. Riley to dismiss the proceeding for failure to join a necessary party and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In seeking to invalidate designating petitions based on the alleged failure of the Executive Committee of the State Committee of the Working Families Party (hereinafter the Executive Committee) to comply with Election Law § 6-108, the petitioners challenge the actions and authority of the Executive Committee. Accordingly, the Executive Committee is a necessary party to the proceeding, and the petitioners' failure to join it was jurisdictionally fatal (see CPLR 1001[a]; Matter of Flores v. Kapsis, 10 A.D.3d 432, 433, 780 N.Y.S.2d 798; Matter of Barbuto v. Sarcone, 275 A.D.2d 424, 425, 713 N.Y.S.2d 128; Matter of Jenkins v. Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 270 A.D.2d 436, 437, 705 N.Y.S.2d 64; Matter of Regan v. New York State Bd. of Elections, 207 A.D.2d 647, 616 N.Y.S.2d 109; Matter of Oberle v. Caracappa, 133 A.D.2d 241, 518 N.Y.S.2d 990; Matter of Curcio v. Wolf, 133 A.D.2d 188, 189, 518 N.Y.S.2d 694). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the proceeding.
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: August 27, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)