Section 330, subdivision 2, of the Election Law gives the Supreme Court summary jurisdiction in a proper case to order a reconvening of an organization meeting of the county committee of a political party. So much of the order here appealed from as orders the county committee meeting reconvened, is justified by the proof that many of the committeemen who attended at the place chosen for the first meeting could not be accommodated there, and the proof that for that reason *103 a determination as to the result of the balloting was impossible. The Appellate Division under the circumstances of this case properly refused to determine the disputed questions of fact as to other alleged irregularities. The other directions in the Appellate Division order do not seriously curtail the rights of any party and so do not require our attention. No other question survives in this court.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse the orders appealed from and to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Election Law confers no jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to reconvene a meeting of the county committee duly called and conducted in accordance with section 15 of the Election Law and the rules of the party.

The field within which the plenary powers of the court may be exercised is limited to the matters specified in section 330 of the Election Law (Matter of Holley [Rittenberg], 268 N. Y. 484, 487). Subdivision 2 of that section limits the power of the court to act summarily as to “ The nomination of any candidate, or his election to any party position, * * By the Legislature alone may such summary powers as are here sought to be invoked be extended (Matter of Hogan v. Supreme Court, 281 N. Y. 572, 576).

Lehman, Ch. J., Loitghran, Lewis, Conwat, Desmond and Thacher, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Rippet, J., dissents, in opinion.

Order affirmed.