Case Title: Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-08-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party


2009 NY Slip Op 06304 [13 NY3d 139]


August 26, 2009


Per Curiam


Court of Appeals


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


As corrected through Wednesday, October 14, 2009



[*1]
In the Matter of Anthony Peluso et al., Appellants,vErie County Independence Party et al., Respondents, and New York State Committee of the Independence Party et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.Argued August 25, 2009; decided August 26, 2009



Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party, 65 AD3d 820, reversed.








APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL


John Ciampoli, Albany, for appellants.
Jerome D. Schad, Williamsville, Cantor, Lukasik, Dolce, Panepinto, Buffalo (Sean Cooney of counsel), and Cheryl A. Green, County Attorney (Kristin Klein Wheaton of counsel), for respondents.

{**13 NY3d at 140} OPINION OF THE COURT


Per Curiam.
Petitioners brought this proceeding pursuant to the Election Law, the General Associations Law and CPLR article 78, seeking, among other things, a declaration that [*2]respondent Erie County Committee of the Independence Party's rules are invalid and contrary to the rules of the State Committee of the Independence Party, as well as an injunction. The State Committee cross-petitioned, joining in petitioners' request for declaratory relief.
The Appellate Division erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that the declaration sought is an advisory opinion (65 AD3d 820 [2009]). A declaratory judgment action is an appropriate vehicle to establish and promulgate the rights of parties on a particular subject matter, including determining the parties' rights under state and local party rules (see e.g. Matter of Conroy v State Comm. of Independence Party of N.Y., 10 NY3d 896 [2008]).
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in per curiam opinion.
Order reversed, etc.