Ellington v. Kings Cnty. Democratic Cnty. Comm.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | 518630/20 |
| Citation | 135 N.Y.S.3d 600,70 Misc.3d 311 |
| Parties | Phyllis ELLINGTON, Janice Henderson, Jorge Muniz-Reyes, Ernestina Monteiro, David Stein, Aaron Ouyang, Naomi Rabeeya, David Goldberg, Eric Kun, Elana Ehrenberg, Ernestina Monteiro, William Vega, Plaintiffs, v. KINGS COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COUNTY COMMITTEE, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
For Petitioners: ALI NAJMI, ESQ., 261 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, 347-765-1345
For Respondents: ABRAMS FENSTERMAN FENSTERMAN EISMAN FORMATO FERRARA WOLF & CARONE, LLP, By: Amy Beth Marion, Esq., 3 Dakota Drive, New Hyde Park, NY 11042, 516-328-2300
Edgar G. Walker, J. Petitioners Phyllis Ellington, Janice Henderson, Jorge Muniz-Reyes, Ernestina Monteiro, David Stein, Aaron Ouyang, Naomi Rabeeya, David Goldberg, Eric Kun, Elana Ehrenberg, and William Vega (collectively petitioners) move, by way of an order to show cause and verified petition, seeking, in addition to other injunctive and declaratory relief, a declaration that Respondent Kings County Democratic County Committee's ("KCDCC") newly adopted amendment to Article III of the Rules of Government of the KCDCC conflicts with Election Law § 2-112 and is null and void. KCDCC cross-moves for an order: (1) dismissing the verified petition pursuant to CPLR 3001 and 3017(b) ; CPLR 3211(a)(1), (2), (7), (8) and (10) ; and CPLR 1001.
Petitioners are elected members of the KCDCC, having been elected at the Democratic Primary Election held on June 23, 2020. The KCDCC is comprised of members elected biennially in even numbered years from each Election District within Kings County. It is responsible for conducting all affairs of the Democratic Party organization of Kings County and exercises general authority over all committees within its jurisdiction.1
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has issued multiple Executive Orders related to setting limits on in-person gatherings. These include, but are not limited to, Executive Order 202.1, issued on March 12, 2020, which limited any gathering or event anticipated to be fewer than five hundred people to 50% occupancy and Executive Order 202.3, issued on March 16, 2020, which modified Executive Order 202.1 to provide that "any large gathering or event ... shall be cancelled or postponed if more than fifty persons are expected in attendance, at any location in New York State until further notice." On July 3, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.47, which as relevant to the instant matter, states as follows:
Notwithstanding any provision of law or a party's rules to the contrary, any party caucus, party meeting or party convention held pursuant to the Election Law in the year two thousand twenty may be held by telephonic or video conferencing means in whole or in part at the discretion of the chairperson calling such meeting; provided, however, that any required notice shall include instructions to participants as to how to access such video teleconference.
On September 29, 2020, the KCDCC Executive Committee2 adopted an amendment (hereinafter, the amendment) to the Rules for the Government of the Kings County Democratic County Committee ("the Rules"). Specifically, Article III was amended to add a new section (§ 7), entitled "Emergency Provisions during COVID-19 Pandemic." The amendment relates to the process for holding the KCDCC's organizational meeting and any subsequent meetings, as well as the process for casting votes at said meetings. As pertinent to this action, the amendment included the following provisions:
The stated purpose of this amendment was to:
enable the organization and operation of the Kings County Democratic County Committee while achieving the greatest degree of social distancing, complying with state and local laws and orders limiting the size of public gatherings, sheltering in place and reducing exposure to mail depositories and mail carriers, while maintaining the integrity of its voting processes with transparency and public disclosure ...
The amendment specifies that these amended provisions "supercede the provisions of each and every rule set forth within these Rules and the corollary provisions of the Election Law."
Petitioners commenced the instant action arguing that the amendment of the Rules and cancellation of the County Committee organizational meeting is a violation of Election Law § 2-112(1)(b). Petitioners also sought a temporary restraining order, which was denied by this court on October 2, 2020, and seek permanent injunctive relief prohibiting and enjoining the KCDCC from adding any rules which create automatic proxy votes of County Committee members given to their District Leaders. Finally, petitioners seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3001, declaring: (1) that the KCDCC must hold an organizational meeting of the County Committee pursuant to Election Law § 2-112 allowing for participation by all members virtually through video conference and telephonic conference, no later than October 30, 2020, with at least 5 days notice to all County Committee members of such meeting with instructions on how to participate through video conference and telephone conference; (2) that the elected members of the KCDCC are not considered "seated" unless an organizational meeting of the County Committee is held; (3) that the officer positions of the KCDCC have not been filled for the next term of the County Committee unless an organizational meeting of the County Committee is held and members of the County Committee vote for such officers; and (4) the amendment to Article III of the Rules with its addition of § 7 is null and void in its entirety.
KCDCC states, in its opposition and in support of its cross motion, that KCDCC's amended rules comply with both the Executive's Orders issued by Governor Cuomo and the Election Law. KCDCC seeks to dismiss the action on various grounds.
The court initially finds that the KCDCC's procedural arguments are without merit. Contrary to KCDCC's assertion, the petition presents a justiciable controversy over which the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioners' requested relief is not limited to ensuring that they are seated, or limited to seeking the ability to change the KCDCC's rule relating to sex parity for the members of the County Committee. Rather, petitioners seek the rights attendant to participating in an organizational meeting. Pursuant to the Election Law and KCDCC's own Rules, this meeting is where the County Committee's officers are elected, rules are adopted, vacancies are filled, and other such business is conducted ( Election Law § 2-112[1] ; Rules, Article III, § 1). The court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy in that the holding of the organizational meeting is specifically required by Election Law § 2-112(1), and the failure to hold such a meeting, as discussed below, constitutes an irregularity within the meaning of Election Law § 16-102 ().3
KCDCC's contention that the requested injunctive relief renders this special proceeding (CPLR Art. 4; Election Law § 16-116 ) in some way defective because an injunction may only be requested in an "action" (see CPLR 6301 ) is without merit as the definition of an action encompasses a special proceeding (see CPLR 103[b], 105[b] ). Moreover, to the extent that this proceeding was brought in an improper form, this court has the authority, in the interest of justice, to convert this special proceeding into an action (see CPLR 103[c] ; Matter of Quinn v. Cuomo , 183 A.D.3d 928, 930, 125 N.Y.S.3d 120 [2d Dept. 2020] ). Indeed, as the requested declaratory relief is only cognizable in an action, the court exercises this authority, and converts the special proceeding into an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and deems the order to show cause to be a summons, the petition to be the complaint and a motion for summary judgment on the complaint, and the opposition papers to be an answer and a cross motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial