People v. Schofield

Decision Date26 August 2021
Docket Number533467
CitationPeople v. Schofield, 199 A.D.3d 5, 153 N.Y.S.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Parties In the Matter of the PEOPLE of the State of New York, BY Letitia JAMES, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason SCHOFIELD, Individually and as Commissioner of the Rensselaer County Board of Elections, et al., Appellants. Troy Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al., Proposed Intervenors.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

David Gruenberg, Troy, and Carl J. Kempf III, County Attorney, Troy, for appellants.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Sarah L. Rosenbluth of counsel), for respondent.

New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City(Perry Grossman of counsel), for proposed intervenors.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

OPINION AND ORDER

Garry, P.J.

(1) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court(Silverman, J.), entered June 7, 2021 in Rensselaer County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, among other things, annul a determination of respondentRensselaer County Board of Elections designating polling places for early voting pursuant to Election Law § 8–600(2), and (2) motion to intervene.

In 2019, the Legislature provided that, with limited exceptions, persons registered and eligible to vote in any general or primary election would be permitted to cast their ballots in the 10 days prior to the election (seeElection Law § 8–600[1], as added by L 2019, ch 6, § 8).To ensure that the early voting option would be fully available, county boards of elections were directed to "designate[ ] at least one early voting polling place for every full increment of [50,000] registered voters in each county"( Election Law § 8–600[2][a] ).Rensselaer County has approximately 109,000 registered voters.During the 2019 election cycle, respondentRensselaer County Board of Elections(hereinafter the Board) sited two early voting polling places.Each of these sites was in a suburban location that was difficult to reach via public transportation from the City of Troy, Rensselaer County(hereinafter the City), the County's most populous municipality and home to almost a quarter of its actively enrolled voters.For the 2020 election cycle, the Board belatedly addressed concerns raised by elected officials and various community and public interest groups regarding the lack of an early voting polling place in the City – and pending legislative efforts that would force the Board to designate such a polling place (see2019 N.Y. Assembly Bill A8610–B; 2019 N.Y. Senate Bill S8782) – by establishing a third early voting polling place in the City's southeastern corner, at the Holy Cross Armenian Church.The Board subsequently adhered to these designated polling places despite repeated complaints from petitioner and others – mainly a coalition of community groups that included proposed intervenorTroy Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(hereinafter the NAACP).These groups vigorously asserted that Holy Cross did not satisfy the statutory criteria for early voting polling places (seeElection Law § 8–600[2] ), and that a polling place should either be relocated to, or established in, a location more readily accessible to City residents.

After the 2020 election cycle concluded, Election Law § 8–600 was amended to specifically require that county boards of elections situate at least one early voting polling place in "the municipality with the highest population in each county," located along public transportation routes if existent ( Election Law § 8–600[2][a], as amended by L 2020, ch 344, § 1).Thereafter, in April 2021, petitioner, the NAACP and various groups proposed four sites for early voting in the City, any one of which they asserted was "a significant improvement over prior early voting plans in terms of meeting the requirements for equitable access defined in Election Law § 8–600(2)."RespondentsJason Schofield and Edward McDonough, the Commissioners of the Board, responded that they had met with representatives from the four proposed "sites to determine availability and whether they met all of the required specifications," but they continued to believe that the Holy Cross site complied with the established legal requirements and was the best option for Rensselaer County residents.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board's determination as to the early voting polling places for the 2021 primary and general elections and to obtain injunctive and other relief.Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court annulled the Board's determination that the early voting polling places selected for the 2021 primary and general elections afforded "adequate and equitable access for all voters in Rensselaer County" and directed the Board to select new locations that satisfied the requirements of Election Law § 8–600.Respondents appeal.On June 24, 2021, in response to motions seeking various relief, this Court, among other things, granted petitioner's motion to vacate the automatic stay afforded by CPLR 5519(a)(1).Thereafter, the NAACP and three City residents who are registered voters moved to intervene as petitioners.We now decide that motion and the appeal.

First, with respect to the motion to intervene, "a court‘may allow other interested persons’ to intervene in a special proceeding" and "[p]ermission to intervene in [a CPLR]article 78 proceeding may be granted at any point of the proceeding, including after judgment for the purposes of taking an appeal"( Matter of Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v. DeBuono,91 N.Y.2d 716, 720, 674 N.Y.S.2d 634, 697 N.E.2d 589[1998], quotingCPLR 7802[d];seeMatter ofRomeo v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 39 A.D.3d 916, 917, 833 N.Y.S.2d 298[2007];Matter ofElinor Homes Co. v. St. Lawrence, 113 A.D.2d 25, 28, 494 N.Y.S.2d 889[1985] ).The "interested persons"standard of CPLR 7802(d) is "more liberal than that provided in CPLR 1013" for intervention in other civil actions ( Matter ofTennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Town of Chatham Bd. of Assessors, 239 A.D.2d 831, 832, 657 N.Y.S.2d 269[1997];seeMatter of Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v. DeBuono,91 N.Y.2d at 720, 674 N.Y.S.2d 634, 697 N.E.2d 589;Matter ofBall v. Town of Ballston, 173 A.D.3d 1304, 1306, 103 N.Y.S.3d 173[2019], lv denied34 N.Y.3d 903, 112 N.Y.S.3d 694, 136 N.E.3d 429[2019] ).This Court is "vested with all the power of Supreme Court to grant [a]motion for intervention"( Auerbach v. Bennett,47 N.Y.2d 619, 628, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994[1979];seeMatter ofClinton v. Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145, 147 n., 534 N.Y.S.2d 473[1988] ), and "this permissive determination lies within the [C]ourt's discretion"( Matter of Pace–O–Matic, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth.,72 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 898 N.Y.S.2d 295[2010];seeMatter ofClinton v. Summers, 144 A.D.2d at 147n., 534 N.Y.S.2d 473 )."[W]hen deciding whether to grant such a request, a court may properly balance the benefit to be gained by intervention, and the extent to which the proposed intervenor may be harmed if it is refused, against other factors, such as the degree to which the proposed intervention will delay and unduly complicate the litigation"( Matter ofPier v. Board of Assessment Review of Town of Niskayuna, 209 A.D.2d 788, 789, 617 N.Y.S.2d 1004[1994] ), and whether any party would be prejudiced (seeJones v. Town of Carroll,158 A.D.3d 1325, 1328, 72 N.Y.S.3d 657[2018], lv dismissed31 N.Y.3d 1064, 77 N.Y.S.3d 332, 101 N.E.3d 974[2018] ).

The three individual proposed intervenors are minority and/or disabled City residents who rely upon public transportation.They aver as to their preference to take advantage of early voting and as to how their ability to do so will be hampered by the locations of the early voting polling places chosen by the Board.The president of the NAACP submitted an affidavit explaining that promoting and protecting voting rights is a critical part of the NAACP's mission, and setting forth how the location of early voting polling places in Rensselaer County impacts both specific NAACP members and other voters of color.Finding that all four proposed intervenors have thus established that they qualify as "interested persons,"we must next determine whether to exercise our discretion to permit them to intervene.

Although the motion to intervene was filed quite late in the process, which we do not condone, we note that the NAACP had been informally involved with this situation for two years, writing letters to respondents and expressing its concerns with the selections and selection process for early voting sites.The record contains an affidavit from an individual who identified himself as a member of the NAACP and described his efforts to promote voting in the City, as well as an affidavit from proposed intervenorSharon Ferguson, a voter with no vehicle access who explained her difficulty in reaching the early voting polling places; she is also an NAACP member.As noted above, the timing of the motion is not ideal, and surely the better practice would have been for the proposed intervenors to seek intervention in Supreme Court shortly after commencement.Nonetheless, considering the well-documented history of this dispute, respondents cannot credibly claim surprise or prejudice arising from the assertions of either the NAACP or Ferguson specifically.

The proceeding will not be delayed, as the proposed intervenors have not sought an adjournment or to file a separate brief but have adopted petitioner's brief and arguments (seeJones v. Town of Carroll,158 A.D.3d at 1326–1328, 72 N.Y.S.3d 657 ).Similarly, although anyone seeking to intervene must provide, with the motion papers, "a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

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