Matter of Wohl v. Rockland County Republican Comm.

Matter of Wohl v Rockland County Republican Comm. 2024 NY Slip Op 33420(U) October 1, 2024 Supreme Court, Rockland County Docket Number: Index No. 035617/2024 Judge: Keith J. Cornell Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

UPREME CO RT OF THE ST TE OF EW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- X In the Matte r of the Appli cation of DECISION & ORDER LAUR MARIE WOHL, JO P. VAL E Tl 0, AIDA ROWA and JAMES FOLEY, Index o.: 0356 17/2024 Petitioners, (Motion # 1 & 2) -against- ROCKLAND COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE, Respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------ X Hon. Keith .J. Corne ll, A.J. S.C.

Before the Court is the Petition of the above captioned petitioners eeking certain injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 6301 and a declaratory judgment pursuant to CPLR 300 1. Respondent opposes the petition and has moved to dism iss the Petition. This Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining the R spend nt from noticing and holding its organizational meeting pursuant to E lection Law 2-112 , pending a hearing and resolution of the Petition (NYSCEF 6).

The fol lowing have been read and considered : NYSCEF Doc os. 1-13.

In this proceeding there are four named petitioner , two of whom, Lauren Marie Wohl ( 'Wohl ) and Jon P. Valentino ("Valentino") are referred to as "Petitioner-Aggrieved Candidate".

Wohl is the elected Town Clerk of the Town of Clarkstown, a member of the Republican Party and a member of the Rockland County Republican Committee (the ·'Comm ittee" or " Re pendent').

Valentino is an elected Town Councilman of the Town of Clarkstown and a member of the Republican Pa11y. Petitioners A idan Rowan and James Fo ley are members of the Repub lican Party an d the Committee.

The Petition alleges that Respondent has violated lection Law §2- 112 by placing hurdles for members of the Committee to lawfully select the members of the executive committ e. lt allege that Election Law §2-1 12( 1) states that " [e ]very committee shall meet and organ ize by electin g a chairman, a secretary, a trea urer and such other officers as they may pursuant to their

[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024 rules .'· Accordin g to the Peti tion, the only limitation on who can serve as officers is the requirement that they must be "enrolled m embers of the party but need not be members of such committees" (Election Law 2 - 112(2)).

The Petition fmiher alleges that the Respondent has impro perly lim ited the pool of eligib le nominees for party officers by the adopti on of Article 11 , Sectio n 12 (L) of its Bylaws (the "Challenged Bylaw") which proh ibi ts elected officials from serving on the executive commi ttee (NYSCEF D oc. # 2).

The Petiti on argues that the Challenged By law violates th e Election Law and that it can be used to prevent Petitioners from being nominated and eligible to hold a Committee leadership p o ition. Presumably, the Petition only intended to refer to Wohl and Valentino who are elected officials. Petitio ners seek injunctive relief preventing the application of the Challenged Bylaw and a declaration that that Challenged Bylaw violates Election Law 2- 112(6) by prohibiting an elected official from serving as an officer of the Committee and dec laring it null and void.

RESPO DENT' S MOTION TO DISMISS Respondent moved to dism iss the Petition (NYSCEF # 11). Respondent argues that the Petition i not ripe for judicial review because there is no justic iable controversy. Respondent argues that despite two of the Petiti oners bein g charac terized as "aggri eved", they have not actua ll y all ged being aggrieved by the Challenged Bylaw. Responded argues further that the Petition onl y alleges the theoretical possibility of two of the petitioners being affected (aggrieved) by the Challenged By law if they were to seek to be elected to a party leadership position in the future, but that they have not claimed that they, in fact, seek such positions.

In addition to the posi tion that the matter is not ripe for rev iew, the Respondent argues that th e Challenged Bylaw is not violative of the lectio n Law.

DISC The matter came on b fore this Court on September 27, 2024, at which time counsel for each party appeared and offered oral arg um ent supporting their respective positions and to aid the Court in its examination of the issues presented. The Court reserved decision and indicated it

[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024 wished to review all the submissions and issue a prompt written decision, considering the time sensitivity as ociated wi th the timetable for party organization pur uant to the Election Law.

Before the Court may address the merits of the question presented -whether the Challenged Bylaw vi olate the Election Law, the Court must examine whether a j usticiable controversy exists.

Respondent argues that the Petitioners have not alleged any actual injury and that they only complain about the Challenged By law in the abstract. The Petition include the fo llowing p rtinent allegations: l) 20. However, as written , the Illegal Rule can be used to prevent Petitioners from being nominated and el igible to hold a party leadership position.

2) 26. As described above, Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits . The inj ury to Petitioners i immediate and irr parab le. They wil l be unable to run for patty leadership and an illegitimate executi ve board may be elected due to the Ill egal Rul e.

These are the two substantive allegations in the Petition addressing "aggrievement". A paity must be aggrieved to achieve standing to ue and, absent standing, the party has not alleged a j usticiable controversy. The "aggrievement" al legations do not reflect any actual harm that has occurred, but only a po si ble or theoretical one that may occur in the future. The P titioners do not allege that one of more of them have sought to run for the pos itio n of a party officer and been baned from doing so. Fmther, the Petiti oners do not allege that one or more of them pl an to seek a party office and have been advised that they are ineligible to do so.

Perhap , the Petitioner believe that if Woh l and/or Valentino were to attend the Comm ittee 's organi zat ional meeting and seek to be nominated and stand for election as an officer, they would be prevented from doing so. Perhap they ai·e right. But the "aggrievement" allegations of the Petition are pecul iai·ly devoid of specifi cs. The Co urt is left wondering why, if there is a genuine desir and intention to run for a party office, that is not alleged.

The Petitioner claim that the Challenged Bylaw is illegal and could be used to deprive them of the opportunity to run for a party office. However, given that no organizational meeting has been announced and there have been no official proceedings of the Comm ittee, the Petitioners cannot show tha t ther is any harm which has ripened into a justiciable controversy. It is entirely possible that one may occur soon, but the declaratory judgment m chanism of CPLR 300 1 requires

[* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024 the present existence of a justiciable controversy. That requirement is what distinguishes a declaratory judgment from a mere advisory opinion.

Here, Petitioners seek to invalidate the Challenged Bylaw, but do not allege an actual desire and intention to seek a party office. It is not for the Court to speculate as to why the Petitioners cho e to craft the Petition just so nor should the Court "fill in the blanks" of the allegations to find the existence of a justiciable controversy. The Petitioners could have articulated that Wohl and/or Valentino intend to seek party offices and seek a declaration that they are eligible to run and that the hallenged Bylaw should be declared illegal and unenforceable. They did not.

The Petitioners, in addressing both the merits of their claim and their. entitlement to sue prospectively rely upon Terenzi v. W, stchester County Committee of the Conservative Party of the State of ew York, 17 l Misc. 2d 93, for the proposition that they have standing now without having to wait because if they await the Committee ' organizational meeting they would have no effective intraparty mechanism to seek a Bylaw change in advance of the e lection of officers.

Therefore, they argue that there is an imminent deprivation of their rights which requires judicial intervention. Petitioners argue that, as in Terenzi , committee rul es "which strike at the heart of the party membership's right to representation of their choice are invalid and should not be subject to whether the incoming County Comm ittee votes to repeal." (Terenzi, supra). Petitioners argue that, similarly, th y should not have to appear at an organizational meeting only to attempt a Bylaw repeal if that provision is patently illegal and that they should be able to obtain an advance determination as to it illegality. This position is well-taken .

Here, however the Petitioner who could be affected by the Challenged Bylaw have not estab li shed that they are candidates for the party offices. While it is implied in the petition, it is noticeably not articulated . The Court, in reading the allegations, can find no nexus between the Wohl and Valentino allegations and any actual harm , either present or imminent. To do so, the Court would have to engraft additional allegations onto the Petition which wou ld be wholly improper.

The econd D partment's decision in Premier Restorations of ew York Corp. v. ew York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 127 A.D.Jd 1049, 5 N.Y.S.Jd 888 (2d Dep't 2015), highlights the point and demonstrates how a plaintiffs description of alleged damages can provide insight to a court as to whether there is an actual controversy. In Premier Restorations, plaintiff commenced a

[* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024 declaratory judgment action and pleaded "a hypothetical injury whi ch would be contingent upon the occurrence of events which may or may not come to pass at some point in the future:· The court held that this amo unted to a request for an advisory opinion and affirmed the order granting defendant's motion to dismi the complaint.

Whi le the Petition's allegations come close to alleging a justiciable controversy such as the one raised in Terenzi, the fai lure to specificall y allege that Wohl and/or Valentino do, indeed, seek party offices is odd and striking. On a motion to dismiss, the courts read pleadings liberally and with forgive ness, giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonabl e inferences. Here, in determining whether there is a justiciable controversy, however, the analysis is different. The Court is not making any determination that the all egations are insufficient as to the merits of the claim that the Challenged By law violates the Election Law, but merely that the Petition does not allege that Wohl and/or Valentino w ill be affected by the Cha ll enged Bylaw so as to confer standing.

Based upon the foregoing , the Court can find no justiciable controversy that is ripe for judicial review. If indeed Wohl and/or Valentino do seek party offices, they will have ce11ain remedies avai lable to them , including the possibility of the ability to affect a rules change or seek judicial intervention at that time. 1

1 Interestingly while the Election Law does estab lish the requirement for the post-primary organizational meeting, the Committee's Bylaws provide for its meeting to follow a ce11ain protocol , including the adoption of rules before the election of officers in Article II , Section 9 (Meetings) YSCEF #2). The order of business, by providing for pos ible action on rule changes before the election of officers, may al low for the repeal of the Challenged Bylaw prior to the election of officers. While Article IV of the Bylaws provides certain criteria for the presentation of Bylaw amendments and the Election Law requires the filing of amendments before they are effective, it may be feasi ble for the incoming comm ittee members to address rules changes before the officer electio ns. In theory, if the requisite number of committee members petition for a rules change, that could happen at the organizational meeting. The requirement that committee rules be filed with the Board of Elections before they are effective may pose a logistical challenge to a rules change taking effect at the organ izational meeting, unless the meeting is adjourned briefly to allow for the requisite filing. Of course, once justiciability is established, a proper petitioner should have acce s to judicial redress, without the necessity to pursue a ru les change in a case w here a rule is challenged a contrary to law.

[* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2024 05:47 PM INDEX NO. 035617/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2024

Therefore it is ORDERED, that Respondent's motion to dismiss the Petition is hereby ORA TED and the Petition is dismis ed; and it is furthe r ORDERED, that the preliminary restraining order contained in the September l 0, 2024, Order to Show Cause (NYSCEF # 6) is hereby vacated. ~ Dat d: October I 2024 ew City, New York g Justice of the Supreme Court

To: All Counsel via YSCEF

[* 6] 6 of 6