Matter of Kuhn v. Chan

Matter of Kuhn v Chan 2025 NY Slip Op 31504(U) April 29, 2025 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Index No. 610287/2025 Judge: James Hudson 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: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Short Form Order I DEX NO.: 610287/2025

~upreme ~ourt of tbe ~tate of Jl,ew !}ork ~ountp of ~uffolk ~ommercial ~ibision t)art xJL l'3J

PRESENT: HON. JAMES HUDSON MOTION DATE: 4/17/25 A cting Justice oftl,e Supreme Court SUBMIT DATE: 4/22/25 ---------------------------------------------· ------------X Mot. Seq.# 001 - MG In the Matter of the Application of

DAWN MARIE D. K HN, Candidate Aggrieved,

Petitioner,

-against-

DAVID CHA , a Purported Candidate for the Public Office of Councilmcmber 2nd Town District, Town of Islip,

and

BETTY MA ZELLA, Commissioners Constituting the Suffolk County Board of Elections, JOHN ALBERTS, Commissioners Constituting the Suffolk County Board of Elections,

Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------X Upon the fo llowing paper on this e-filed motion to inva lidate petition ; Notice of Motion/ Order to how au e and suppo1ting papers filed by petitio ner dated 4/17/25 ; otice ofCros Motion and supporting papers · A n wering Affida its and supporting paper by respondents Manzella and Alberts dated 4/21 /25 and Re pondent Chan dated 4/2 1/25 ; Replying Affida it and upporting papers by dated · Other Return by Re pondents uffolk Co unty Board of Electio ns, Manzezlla and Alberts filed 4/21 /25 Memorandum of law in opposition by respondent ha n dated 4/23 /25; and affi nn at ion in re onse b Petitioner dated 4/28/25 · (a,ul after hearing counsel in support and opposed to the motion) it is,

The matter at hand is an action pursuant to lection Law §§ 16-100 I 6-102 and 16-116

which seeks a declaration that the Democratic Party Certificate of uthorization and Designating [* 1] 1 of 6

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Kuhn v Chan 610287/2025

Petitions which de ignate David Chan as a Candidate of the Democratic Party for the Office of

Councilm mber, 2nd Town District, Town oflslip are null and void. The Petitioner also requests

an order prohibiting the Respondent Suffolk Board of Elections from placing Mr. Chan's name on

the Democratic Party's 2025 Primary ballot or from being designated as the Party ' s candidate in

the general election.

Petitioner is the candidate of the Republican and Conservative parties for the Office of

Councilmember, 2nd own District Town oflslip in the upcoming primary and general elections.

It is av rred, inter alia, that the Respondent Mr. Chan is a registered Republican. Accordingly, his

candidacy for the Democratic nomination could only be achieved by following the strictures of

Election Law§ 6-120.

This statute provides in relevant part that

(1) A petition ... for the purpose of designating any person as a candidate for party nomination at a primary election shall be valid only if the person so designated is an enrolled member of the party referred to in said designating petition ... (2) Except .. . (3) The members of the party committee representing the political subdivision of the office for which a designation or nomination is to be made, unless the rules of the party provide for another committee, in which case the members of such other committee, ... may, by a majority vote of those present at such meeting provided a quorum is present authorize the designation or nomination of a person as candidate for any office who is not enrolled as a member of uch party ...

Mr. Chan obtained a Certificate of Authorization (also commonly referred to as a "Wilson

Pakula ') which wa filed with the Respondent BO on or about April 10th , 2025. This document

is dated April 9th , 2025 and refers to an earlier meeting which occurred on January 14th, 2025 at

which time a duly designated subcommittee conferred statutory authorization for him to proceed

in the D mocratic Party's June Primary.

2 [* 2] 2 of 6

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Kuhn v Chan 610287 /2025

The gravamen of the Petitioner's claim is centered on the timing of the Certificate of

Authorization. The Petitioner notes that ' In February of 2025 the Democratic Party nominated

Francis T. Genco a registered voter of the Democratic Party, as its candidate for Councilmember,

2nd Town District Town of Islip. From February 25 2025 to April 3, 2025 the Democratic Party

circulated a Designating Petition for Francis T. Genco and thereafter 5 volumes were submitted to

the uffolk County Board of Elections on behalf of Mr. Genco's candidacy containing

Identification umbers SU25-4 1, SU25-46, SU25- 48, S 25-50 and U25-55.' (Verified Petition

para 14, NYSCEF Doc No. 1).

The intervening nomination of Mr. G nco, P titioner argues, renders the earlier designation

"an. impossibil.ity" (Verified Petition para 13 ).

The Respondent Mr. Chan has filed a verified answer containing three objections in point

of law. The first objection and the basis of a motion to dismiss, is that the Petitioner has failed to

join a neces ary party, namely: the Suffolk County Democratic Party 's Executive Committee.

Initially, the Court must commend th attom ys who appeared before the Court for their

advocacy and sage argument. The parties are all well-served by such counsel.

Prior to examining the merits of the Petition the Court must consider whether the absence

of the Democratic Party from the petition is an impediment to going forward.

In support of his motion to dismiss, Respondent ' s Counsel, Mr. Silverman, argues that

. .. the Petitioner is challenging the action and authority of the Suffolk County Democratic

Committee in issuing a Certificate of Authorization and thus, the failure to join such Committee

as a necessary party is fatal to the petition requiring dismissal". In support of this contention,

Respondent relies on the holdings in Curcio v. Wolf, 133 AD2dl 88 (2d Dept I 987); Jacobellis v.

3 [* 3] 3 of 6

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Kuhn v Chan 610287/2025

Fonseca 43 AD3d484 (2d Dept 2007; Flores v. Kapsis 10 AD3d432 (2d Dept 2004) as well as the

language found in CPLR§lO0l(a).

In his eloquent reply, Mr. Losquadro urges the Court to apply the holding in Hensley v.

Efman , 192 Misc 2d 782, 747 NYS2d 339 (Sup Ct assau Cty 2002). In that case Justice Phelan,

of happy memory, wrote "[t]he members of the Committe to Fill Vacancies identified on a

candidate's designating petition are not necessary parties where a challenge is made to the validity

of the designating petition. However where the proceeding is brought challenging the action of

the committee itself its members are clearly necessary." (id. At 783)

Hensley is applicable herein petitioner asserts because she . . . merely and solely

challenges the face of the Certificate of Authorization purporting to nominate/designate David

Chan as a candidate of the Democratic Party for the Public Office of ouncilmember, 2nd Town

District, Town of Islip, as the document is inaccurate or impossible ' (Reply brief para 8 YSCEF

Doc o. 23).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court is not persuaded by this argument. Indeed, the

rule in Hensley was abrogated by the Court in Morgan v. de Blasio 29 Y3d 559 560 82 3d

447,448 (2017). In Morgan , the Court was pr sented with a fact pattern analogous to the case at

bar. A challenge was made to the Working Families Party' designation of Bill de Blasio as a

candidate in its primary election for Mayor of the City of ew York. As in the present instance,

the Executive Committee of the Political Party was not made a respondent. In upholding the

dismissal of the Petition, the Court of Appeals stated

Necessary parties are those 'who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action" (CPLR 1001 [a]). Appellants rely on Matter of O'Brien v. Seneca County Bd. of Elections, 22 AD3d 1036, 1036, 803 NYS2d 830 (4th Dept2005) and Matter of Seaman v. Bird, 176 AD2d 1061 ,

4 [* 4] 4 of 6

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Kuhn v Chan 610287/2025

1062 575 YS2d 207 (3d Dept 1991) to argue that, because complete relief could be obtained from the Board of Elections the Executive Board of the Working Families Party is not a necessary party. Their reliance is misplaced. H re where petitioners assert that the Executive Board's certificate of authorization was invalid under Election Law§ 6- 120 the Executive Board of the Working Families Party was a necessary party because a judgment on this issue could inequitably affect its interests. To the extent that there are other decisions to the contrary, they should not be follow d. (id. At 560)

An exception to the holding in Morgan was noted by the Court in LaLota v. New York State Bd.

of Elections, 183 AD3d 785,124 YS3d 395, (2d Dept 2020) when the challenged action was

whether or not a person was eligible ' ... to become a candidate for public office ... " (id. at 787)

Cox v. Spotli, 62 Misc 3d 1220 (A), 113 YS3d 471 (Sup Ct, Erie Cty) order affd, appeal

dismis ed, 165 AD3d 1648, 85 Y 3d 671 (2018) is illustrative of the Morgan Rule 's expan e.

In Cox the Court held that it was not necessary to include a Political Party s Executive Committee

as a respondent because " ... it as futile to name the existing Executive Committee as a party

because it wasfunctus officio, without power to act upon substantial matters such as nominations."

(id. at 1220(A)).

Petitioner's protestations to the contrary, this Court finds that the relief sought require the

Court to examine the "authority and actions of the Executive Committee" of the Suffolk County

Democratic Party in issuing Mr. Chan a Certificate of Authorization (Stein v. Kings Cnty.

Democratic Cnty. Comm. , 206 AD3d 845 , 846, 168 YS3d 345, 346 [2d Dept 2022]).

Accordingly, the failure to include the aforementioned Executive Committee (or duly constituted

sub-committee) obliges the Court to deny the Petition and grant the motion for dismissal (CPLR

§321 l (a)( l0)). The Court does not address the remaining contentions of the parties.

5 [* 5] 5 of 6

FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 610287/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025 Kuhn v Chan 6 J0287/2025

Therefore it is

ORDERED that the first objection in point oflaw to the Petition is sustained and the motion

to dismiss the Petition is granted. It is further

Ordered that the Petition is dismi ed.

Dated: April 29 th 2025 Riverhead NY HpN. JA ES HUDSON A ~ l e of the Supreme our/

6 [* 6] 6 of 6