Suffolk County Democratic Committee v. Gaffney

• Decision Date: 10 September 1993
• Citation: 601 N.Y.S.2d 935,196 A.D.2d 799
• Parties: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, et al., Appellants, v. Robert J. GAFFNEY, etc., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 935

601 N.Y.S.2d 935

196 A.D.2d 799

SUFFOLK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, et al., Appellants, v. Robert J. GAFFNEY, etc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Sept. 10, 1993.

George O. Guldi, Westhampton (John J. Leo, Wayne R. Arden, Marlene Budd, and Mark Cuthbertson, of counsel), for appellants.

Robert J. Cimino, County Atty., Hauppauge (James M. Catterson, of counsel), for respondents.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BALLETTA, EIBER and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, Local Laws, 1993, No. 12, of the County of Suffolk unconstitutional and for injunctive relief, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered May 28, 1993, as (1) granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as it was asserted by the plaintiffs Suffolk County Democratic Committee and Dominick J. Baranello, on the ground of lack of standing, (2) granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss those causes of action asserted by the remaining plaintiffs which alleged violations of Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13), the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1973), and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985), and (3) denied their application for a preliminary injunction.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action challenging the constitutionality of Local Laws, 1993, No. 12, of the County of Suffolk, which reapportioned the Suffolk County Legislature. In addition, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction barring Suffolk County from instituting the reapportionment plan and from holding elections for the Suffolk County Legislature until a valid reapportionment plan was adopted.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff Suffolk County Democratic Committee (hereinafter the Committee) lacked standing to challenge the validity of the reapportionment plan. The Committee sued on its own behalf and not on behalf of its members. Under these circumstances, the Committee failed to establish that it would suffer any threatened or actual harm as a result of reapportionment (see, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343). Furthermore, the Committee has no standing to assert a claim under the Voting Rights Act (see, 42 U.S.C. § 1973) since that statute provides a cause of action to persons whose right to vote is abridged or denied as a result of their race or color (see, 42 U.S.C. § 1973). Neither does the Committee have standing to assert a civil rights cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since the Committee does not assert that the reapportionment plan effects an injury to its members' right of association (see, Albany Welfare Rights Org. v. Wyman, 493 F.2d 1319, cert. denied sub nom. Lavine v. Albany Welfare Rights Org., 419 U.S. 838, 95 S.Ct. 66, 42 L.Ed.2d 64), nor is it representing its members' interests (see, Colorado Taxpayers Union v. Romer, 750 F.Supp. 1041, appeal dismissed 963 F.2d 1394, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1360, 122 L.Ed.2d 739; Collin v. Smith, 447 F.Supp. 676, affd. 578 F.2d 1197, cert. denied 439 U.S. 916, 99 S.Ct. 291, 58 L.Ed.2d 264; Socialist Workers Party v. Hardy, 480 F.Supp. 941, affd, 607 F.2d 704). Finally, the Committee has no standing to assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 since it is not a member of a class that the statute was designed to protect (see, Bettio v. Village of Northfield, 775 F.Supp. 1545; Harrison v. KVAT Food Mgmt., 766 F.2d 155; Rodriguez v. Nazario, 719 F.Supp. 52). Since the plaintiff Baranello asserted his rights in this matter "solely as the Chairman" of the Committee, the Supreme Court properly held that, acting in that capacity, he too lacked standing.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action under Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(a)(13). That provision does not apply to Suffolk County since the County operates under a charter form of government (see, Mehiel v. County Board of Legislators of the County of Westchester, 175 A.D.2d 109, 571 N.Y.S.2d 808; Ames v. Smoot, 98 A.D.2d 216, 471 N.Y.S.2d 128).

The cause of action alleging a violation of the Voting Rights Act is grounded on the assumption that the reapportionment plan improperly split minority groups among contiguous districts, thus diluting the ability of those groups to elect candidates of their choice. In order to establish a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the plaintiffs had to establish three threshold conditions: (1) that a minority group is sufficiently large and compact so as to constitute a majority in any one district; (2) that the group is politically cohesive; and (3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to usually ensure the defeat of the minority's preferred candidate (see, Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 1084, 122 L.Ed.2d 388). In the instant case, the complaint contains only conclusory allegations as to these three threshold criteria and is utterly devoid of any factual support. Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed this cause of action (see, Elsky v. KM Insurance Brokers, 139 A.D.2d 691, 527 N.Y.S.2d 446).

The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the cause of action alleging a violation of the Civil Rights Act because the complaint did not contain any allegations that the reapportionment plan was instituted pursuant to an "official policy or custom" (Katz v. Morgenthau, 709 F.Supp. 1219, 1228; see also, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611) or that the defendants harbored a "class-based invidious...