Lodge v. D'Aliso
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards (N.Y. 2005)
- Karagiannis v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Atkins Brothers, LLC v. Conroy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Cybul v. Village of Scarsdale (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Matter of Loehr v. Durand (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Matter of Riverside Hose Co., Inc. v. Village of Tarrytown Vil. Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Cylich v. Riverbay Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Schwimmer v. Welz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Assalone v. Pawling Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Jeanty v. New York State Department of Correctional Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Washington v. Lippman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Battle v. Brookhaven Nursing Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- East Bayside Homeowners Ass'n v. Chin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to compel the
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A party whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486 [1979]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489 [1995]). In the present case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that those police officers who had already been promoted to the rank of sergeant were necessary parties since, if the petitioners were ultimately successful, those sergeants would lose their promotions. Further, since the applicable statute of limitations had already expired, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioners’ cross application to add those applicants as party respondents (see Matter of Ogbunugafor v New York State Educ. Dept., 279 AD2d 738 [2001]). The cross application did not toll the statute of limitations as the petitioners failed to include a copy of the proposed supplemental notice of petition and petition with their cross application (see Perez v Paramount Communications, 92 NY2d 749 [1999]).
The petitioners’ failure to adequately explain why they did not include the promoted officers as respondents in a timely manner, despite being aware of the officers’ identities, precludes them from proceeding in their absence (see CPLR 1001 [b]; see also Matter of Llana v Town of Pittstown, 245 AD2d 968 [1997]) and from relying on the relation-back doctrine (see Matter of 27th St. Block Assn. v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 302 AD2d 155 [2002]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioners’ remaining contentions. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.