Smith v. Pigeon
| Decision Date | 05 September 1997 |
| Citation | 174 Misc.2d 97,662 N.Y.S.2d 1001 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 97,522 Thomas J. SMITH, Petitioner, v. G. Steven PIGEON, as Chairman of the Erie County Democratic Party, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
James M. Shaw, Hamburg, for petitioner.
Timothy R. LoVallo, Buffalo, for G. Steven Pigeon and another, respondents.
Terrence M. Connors, Buffalo, for Anthony M. Masiello, respondent.
This matter was previously before this Court on July 24, 1997 and an order was entered dismissing the matter because the Petitioner had failed to properly commence the proceeding. That record is incorporated by reference into this memorandum as the underlying matter remains the same.
Petitioner again initiates an action wherein he requests a declaration of the rights of the parties. In this purported CPLR article 78 proceeding petitioner, Thomas J. Smith, seeks to have this Court enforce a rule of the by-laws of respondent Erie County Democratic Committee ["ECDC"], such that (1) respondent Anthony M. Masiello ["Masiello"] has automatically forfeited the endorsement of the ECDC for the office of Mayor of the City of Buffalo upon his acceptance of the Republican endorsement, (2) declare that respondent the Executive Committee of the ECDC acted in excess of its authority in waiving Article 2, Section 5(B) of the rules of the ECDC, (3) that the ECDC had no authority to take any affirmative actions on In support of his legal position petitioner cites the rules of the ECDC and Krycia v. Erie County Democratic Committee et al., an unreported Erie County matter from 1996. Specifically Article 2, Section 5(B) states in pertinent part,
behalf of the Masiello candidacy and any such actions taken be deemed null and void, and (4) preclude the ECDC from taking any action in support of the Masiello candidacy.
"A candidate for endorsement or nomination is disqualified from such consideration if he or she receives the Republican endorsement, and automatically forfeits any Democratic endorsement if he or she subsequently accepts a Republican endorsement, nomination or authorization."
Additionally Article 16 Section 1 of the rules of the ECDC provides that amendments to the rules are governed by New York State Election Law section 2-114 which requires amendments to be made by a majority vote of the members of the ECDC. In Krycia supra, the Court found that the Election Law section 3-204(2) controlled and that "... local rules cannot contravene the express statutory mandate ..." Therefore, the ECDC and not its Executive Committee had the sole authority to file a certificate of party recommendation with the clerk of the local legislative body for the purposes of filling the position of Commissioner of Elections. It declared the actions of the Executive Committee to be null and void.
Petitioner requests the Court to apply the finding of Krycia to the matter now before the Court and to find in his favor.
Respondents oppose the requested relief with Notices of Motions to Dismiss on various grounds.
It is uncontroverted that Article 2 of the Rules of the ECDC creates the Executive Committee and imparts it with certain powers and authority. Section 5(A) of that article grants the express authority to the Executive Committee to recommend for designation for the public offices with the City of Buffalo. Said Executive Committee recommended Masiello for the Office of Mayor, said nomination to be made after a primary election to be held in September 1997. Thereafter, the Erie County Republican Committee also designated Masiello to be its candidate at that same primary election. Both parties filed designating nominating petitions with the Erie County Board of Elections on behalf of Masiello in accordance with the election law. Thereafter petitioner brought this Article 78 proceeding.
This matter has been variously before the Court since July 24, 1997 without the benefit of a ruling on the merits due to the procedural posture of the case. However, the import of this matter goes beyond the litigants. Unlike a lawsuit between private parties, this matter affects the voters of the City of Buffalo, the citizenry and population at large. The result of this lawsuit could very well affect the governance of the City. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Courts, as an independent branch of government representing the interests of the citizenry, to conduct its business in an impartial, forthright and timely manner. The voters and taxpayers deserve efficient, effective and real world decisions in real time. As this jurist reviews the papers before the Court, there could exist the possibility that after appellate review, the outcome of an open election by the public could be called into question or compromised. While for the reasons as stated below, that is not the outcome that this jurist believes is the correct legal outcome, it is nonetheless the possible relief that the petitioner requests on the timetable that the petitioner argues applies. As detailed below, this Court has determined that this matter is indeed an Election Law case. Therefore, the Supreme Court is ".. vested with jurisdiction to summarily determine any question of law or fact ... which shall be construed liberally." [Election Law § 16-100(1) ].
Accordingly, this Court hereby renders its decision on both the procedural merits and the substantive claim. Further, this Court is issuing this decision in the form of an order and judgment to enable a more speedy appellate review if the litigants and those Courts choose to do so.
The Court begins with the statutory framework as codified in Election Law Section 6-120, entitled "Designation and nomination; restrictions." That statute sets forth the manner and method by which candidates are designated by the political parties. There is no disagreement that the provisions of this statute were adhered to by both the Democratic and Republican Parties of Erie County.
Case law interpreting this statute is clear that the rules of the various political parties are to be declared invalid if those rules are more restrictive than the requirements set forth by the New York State Legislature. In The Matter of Farley v. Mahoney et al., 130 Misc.2d 455, 458, 496 N.Y.S.2d 607, the Court stated, "Petitioner[ ] ... disregards the fact that the Election Law, by its very terms, is exclusive and that no party rules can be contrary or supersede the Election Law (see, Election Law § 1-102; Art. 6)."
This interpretation of the statute has been set forth by the Court of Appeals. In Grancio v. Coveney, 60 N.Y.2d 603, 467 N.Y.S.2d 194, 454 N.E.2d 534 (1983) a rule of the Conservative Party which was found to be more restrictive than the Election Law section 6-120 was deemed invalid [see also, Matter of Rosenthal v. Harwood, 35 N.Y.2d 469, 475, 363 N.Y.S.2d 937, 323 N.E.2d 179].
Party rules that are more restrictive than the election law have been struck down in other contexts such as holding party position, McSweeney v. Republican County Committee, (1970) 61 Misc.2d 869, 307 N.Y.S.2d 88. Rules of the various party committees have long been held by New York Courts to be superseded by the express provisions of the election law [see, Blaikie v. Knott, 277 A.D. 461, 100 N.Y.S.2d 665 (1950) ]. Indeed, even the case that petitioner cites as authority for his proposition, Krycia, supra, ultimately was decided on the same issue as before this Court, namely that local rules cannot contravene or supersede the Election Law.
Petitioner also requests that based upon State Election Law section 2-114, the Court intercede in the decision making and the conduct of the affairs of the Erie County Democratic Committee and its Executive Committee. However, this section, in permitting party committees to formulate their own rules, manifests legislative intent that there shall be no judicial interference with party government [see, Application of Leichter, (1961) 32 Misc.2d 234, 223 N.Y.S.2d 789]. " 'Internal issues arising within political parties are best resolved within the party organization itself and judicial involvement should only be undertaken as a last resort' (Matter of Bachmann v. Coyne, 99 A.D.2d 742 )", Matter of Engel v. Tutunjian, 129 Misc.2d 987, 988, 494 N.Y.S.2d 813. , Ponsrok v. City of Yonkers, 254 N.Y. 91, 95, 171 N.E. 917.
The Court notes that Article 9, section 2 of the ECDC rules provides for a grievance review that members, such as petitioner, may avail themselves. There is nothing on the record to indicate whether the petitioner filed a formal grievance as provided for in the rules. While this in and of itself is not an absolute bar to the petitioner seeking redress in the Courts, based upon the above it is the course which petitioner should have pursued.
The underlying public policy and purpose of these specific statutes and the decisional case law provide important foundations to our system of politics and government Requirements for candidates to public office beyond those enacted by the Legislature, and interference in the free actions of political parties, would have restrictive and chilling effects on the free flow of the democratic process and our elections and are repugnant to our form of government.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the rule of the ECDC, Article 2, Section 5(B), is more restrictive than section 6-120 of the Election Law and therefore must be deemed invalid and unenforceable, and that pursuant to section 2-114 of the Election Law, absent a statutory violation, the internal administration of the party organization is beyond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Feldman
...the defendants are charged does not impermissibly interfere with the "internal administration of [a] party organization." (Smith v Pigeon, 174 Misc 2d 97, 101-102 [Sup Ct, Erie County Neither are these statutes impermissibly vague. A Penal Law statute is not void for vagueness if it "provid......