Madole v. Barnes

• Decision Date: 15 June 1967
• Citation: 20 N.Y.2d 169,229 N.E.2d 20,282 N.Y.S.2d 225
• Parties: , 229 N.E.2d 20 In the Matter of James H. MADOLE, Appellant, v. Smith BARNES et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 225

282 N.Y.S.2d 225

20 N.Y.2d 169, 229 N.E.2d 20

In the Matter of James H. MADOLE, Appellant, v. Smith BARNES et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 15, 1967.

Jeremiah S. Gutman, New York City, for appellant.

James P. Tamsen, Newburgh, and Thomas R. Hadaway, Goshen, for respondents.

FULD, Chief Judge.

On June 14, 1965, the Board of Supervisors of Orange County promulgated rules for the use of the courthouses in Goshen and Newburgh for other than judicial purposes. Insofar as relevant, the buildings were made available for such use only by 'political parties, as defined in section 2(4) of the Election Law (Consol.Laws, c. 17)'--which defines a 'party' as 'any political organization which at the last preceding election for governor polled at least fifty thousand votes for governor.'

The National Renaissance Party (NRP), whose previous requests to use the Newburgh courthouse had been denied, reapplied for a permit in conformity with the new rules. It was again turned down on the ground that the NRP was not a 'political party.' The petitioner, who is its national director, thereupon brought the present article 78 proceeding to compel the respondents, the Board of Supervisors and the Building Superintendent of Orange County, to issue the requisite permit. Although the petitioner does not expressly state that the NRP is a political party, he does declare (1) that it is 'an unincorporated association which advocates the preservation of American national sovereignty, racial nationalism, and the establishment by constitutional means of a government composed of an intellectual, managerial and military aristocracy' and (2) that he arranges meetings for its officers and candidates for public office 'to speak on topics of public importance and at which guest speakers may also appear.' It did not, however, poll 50,000 votes in the last gubernational election.

The court at Special Term granted the petition and directed issuance of the permit to the NRP. The Appellate Division agreed with Special Term that respondent board's rules were 'unconstitutionally discriminatory against genuine independent political parties'. However, because the petitioner had not specifically alleged that the NRP was such an organization the Appellate Division remitted the matter to Special Term for a hearing on that issue as well as on the issue whether 'expression of (NRP's) views (will) immediately and irreparably create injury to the public weal'.

There is no doubt that the board's rules governing use of the courthouses for nonjudicial purposes were unconstitutionally discriminatory against small political parties. The county is not obliged to make its buildings available for public gatherings but, when it does so, both State and Federal Constitutions (U.S.Const. 14th Amdt.; N.Y.Const. art. I, § 11) require that it be done 'in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner'. (Brown v. State of Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131, 143, 86 S.Ct. 719, 724, 15 L.Ed.2d 637; see, also, East Meadow Community Concerts Assn. v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Nassau County, 18 N.Y.2d 129, 133, 272 N.Y.S.2d 341, 344, 219 N.E.2d 172, 174; Matter of Rockwell v. Morris, 10 N.Y.2d 721, 219 N.Y.S.2d 268, 176 N.E.2d 836, affg. 12 A.D.2d 272, 211 N.Y.S.2d 25.) This means that, if the use is limited to groups of a particular type or in a particular category, there may be no discrimination within the category, and the classification adopted must itself 'rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed'. (Myer v. Myer, 271 App.Div. 465, 472, 66 N.Y.S.2d 83, 90, affd. 296 N.Y. 979, 73 N.E.2d 562, see, also, Matter of Ellis v. Allen, 4 A.D.2d 343, 344, 165 N.Y.S.2d 624, 626, app. dsmd. 4 N.Y.2d 693, 171 N.Y.S.2d 86, 148 N.E.2d 302, mot. for lv. to app. den. 4 N.Y.2d 674, 171 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 148 N.E.2d 915; Matter of Stracquadanio v. Department of Health, 285 N.Y. 93, 97, 32 N.E.2d 806, 808.) 'The essence of the right to equal protection of the laws is that all persons similarly situated be treated alike.' (Myer v. Myer, 271 App.Div. 465, 472, 66 N.Y.S.2d 83, 90, affd. 296 N.Y. 979, 73 N.E.2d 562, supra.)

In the case before us, the record reveals no justifiable purpose for excluding minor political parties from holding public meetings in the Newburgh courthouse. Furthermore, it was error for the Appellate Division to order a hearing on the issue of whether the NRP is a political party. For political purposes, a 'party' is defined as 'an organized group of the electorate that attempts to control government through the election of its candidates to office' (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (6th ed., 1957), p. 613). As the petitioner makes clear, the NRP calls itself a party; its purposes are of a political and governmental character and it nominates candidates for public office. The denial by respondents in their answer of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy of the petitioner's description of the NRP's political character was 'obviously perfunctory and raised no issue whatever'. (Matter of Auer v. Dressel, 306 N.Y. 427, 431, 118 N.E.2d 590, 592, 48 A.L.R.2d 604.) Accordingly, since the respondents have alleged no 'evidentiary facts' to the contrary, a trial on the NRP's status as a political party is not warranted. (CPLR 7804, subd. (e); see, also, Matter of Rotkiewicz v. Department of Mental Hygiene, 283 App.Div. 458, 128 N.Y.S.2d 654, affd. 307, N.Y. 847, 122 N.E.2d 742.)

Nor is there any basis for a hearing as to whether the 'expression' of the NRP's views will 'immediately and irreparably create injury to the public weal'. No such reason was given by the respondents for denying the NRP a permit, and the only hint of any such issue in the pleadings is an allegation in the petition--denied by the respondents in their answer--that members of the Board of Supervisors had charged the NRP and its members with being 'fascist' and 'subversive'. Even if it were found that...