Seaman v. Fedourich

Citation45 Misc.2d 940,258 N.Y.S.2d 152
PartiesDouglas W. SEAMAN, Richard P. Dimmick, A. Robert Dexheimer, George P. Doyle, Plaintiffs, v. Walter FEDOURICH et al., Defendants, Constituting the Common Council of the City of Binghamton, and John J. Burns, Mayor of the City of Binghamton, N.Y., Defendants.
Decision Date13 April 1965
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Willard E. Pierce, Jr., Binghamton, for plaintiffs.

John V. Romagnoli, Corp. Counsel, Binghamton, for defendants.

Stuart M. Pearis, Binghamton, for defendants, Nelson, Gennett, Hastings and Libous.

ROBERT W. SLOAN, Justice.

The plaintiffs who are citizens and qualified voters of the City of Binghamton bring this action against 13 named defendants in their representative capacity as members of the Common Council of the City of Binghamton and Hon. John J. Burns, Mayor of the City of Binghamton. They seek to have the present representation and voting procedure of the Common Council declared in violation of the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution; that the court retain jurisdiction to review any change made in the future in reference to representation and voting strength on said Common Council in order to insure plaintiffs the rights guaranteed them by the Constitutions be protected. The complaint also asks that the defendants be enjoined from acting in their capacity as the Common Council of the City until a legal and constitutional Council is created and that the court declare illegal and void actions heretofore or hereafter taken by the present Common Council; and that the court direct such other relief as may be just and proper.

Except for four of their number, the defendants appear by the Corporation Counsel and move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) on the ground that this court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action. The plaintiffs counter by requesting that the motion be treated as one for summary judgment (CPLR 3211 [c]), and that summary judgment be granted plaintiffs because the complaint and the affidavits and exhibits submitted show that there is no triable issue of fact (CPLR 3212 [b]). Four members of the Board of Supervisors have been permitted to intervene by their own counsel and take the position that this court does have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action.

This action is brought in the wake of recent United States Supreme Court decisions (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506; WMCA Inc. et al. v. Lomenzo et al., 377 U.S. 633, 84 S.Ct. 1418, 12 L.Ed.2d 568; Maryland Committee for Fair Representation et al. v. Tawes et al., 377 U.S. 656, 84 S.Ct. 1429, 1442, 12 L.Ed.2d 595, and others).

The decisions of courts of other states which have assumed jurisdiction of an action of this type do not discuss the question of their jurisdiction to do so in a manner which offers satisfactory guidance in the solution of the same problem here. Neither do we regard the comments on the subject in Maryland Committee etc. v. Tawes (supra) or in Reynolds v. Sims (supra) in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, as giving us jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, if we do not for other reasons possess it. These decisions do indicate, however, that the United States District Courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction of such an action.

The Federal Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) provides that no state may: '* * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'; and Article 1 § 11 of the State Constitution provides: 'No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.' The United States Supreme Court has found the quoted provisions of the Federal Constitution violated by a state constitution or statute apportioning legislative districts on any basis other than population and that a person so aggrieved is deprived of a civil right and may seek redress in an action created for such purpose (42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343). In a memorandum decision handed down on April 6, 1965 by Justice Daniel E. Macken in an action brought in Supreme Court, Monroe County (Goldstein et al. v. Rockefeller et al., 45 Misc.2d 778, 257 N.Y.S.2d 994) judgment was directed in favor of the plaintiffs because the existing apportionment of the Board of Supervisors of Monroe County violated the provisions of both the Federal and New York State Constitutions as being a denial of the equal protection of the law. We may not question the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. We are in accord with the decision in Goldstein et al. v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, et al.

Constitutional rights may be tested in a plenary action in equity brought for that purpose. (Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Halpin, 267 App.Div. 236, 45 N.Y.S.2d 426, affd. Niagara Falls Power Co. v. White, 292 N.Y. 472, 55 N.E.2d 742; N.Y.Jur., Equity § 58). However, in order to test the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature or the activities of state officers thereunder, a plaintiff's civil or property rights must have been specifically and particularly affected thereby. (St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway Inc., 17 A.D.2d 899, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 72, 242 N.Y.S.2d 43, 192 N.E.2d 15; Bull v. Stichman, 273 App.Div. 311, 78 N.Y.S.2d 279) If the allegations of the complaint be true, each plaintiff has been denied his civil right to equal representation, guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions, by the present apportionment of the Common Council of the City of Binghamton, and each are 'specifically and particularly affected thereby.' The fact that they allege that they bring action on behalf of all other similarly situated may be disregarded as superfluous.

At this juncture, it is clear that we have jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and may grant appropriate relief. It matters little whether it be regarded as plenary action to test whether the New York State Constitution is violated, or a civil right action to test whether the Federal Constitution is violated by the present representation and voting procedure of the Common Council of Binghamton. For that matter, it can be both, as the civil right asserted is one and the same in each instance. The New...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Moody v. Flowers
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • 14 Giugno 1966
    ......      It was also in recognition of these clear principles that Justice Fuld, speaking for the highest court in the State of New York, in Seaman v. Fedourich, 16 N.Y. 2d 94, 262 N.Y.S.2d 444, 209 N.E.2d 778 (1965), stated: . It is axiomatic that local governmental units are creations of, and ......
  • Brouwer v. Bronkema, 13
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • 1 Ottobre 1965
    ...of citizens living in other parts of the State.' It is not quite accurate to conclude, as did the trial judge in Seaman v. Fedourich (1965), 45 Misc.2d 940, 258 N.Y.S.2d 152, that Reynolds v. Sims and its companion cases stand for the proposition that the Equality Clause requires apportionm......
  • Morrison v. Board of Sup'rs of Oswego County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 7 Marzo 1970
    ...Law, Article 4, with accompanying redistricting. The Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action. Seaman v. Fedourich, 45 Misc.2d 940, 942, 258 N.Y.S.2d 152, 154; Treiber v. Lanigan, 48 Misc.2d 434, 436, 264 N.Y.S.2d 797, Shilbury v. Board of Supervisors of Sullivan County, 4......
  • Shilbury v. Board of Sup'rs of Sullivan County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 26 Giugno 1965
    ...26 Wis.2d 43, 132 N.W.2d 249; Brouwer v. Bronkema, Circuit Court, Kent County, Mich., Sept. 11, 1964, Searl, J.; Seaman v. Fedourich, 45 Misc.2d 940, 943, 258 N.Y.S.2d 152, 155; Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, D.C., 234 F.Supp. According to the 1960 United States census, the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT