Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Peter J. Garvey, Appellant, v. The Democratic General Committee of New York County et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-06-23
Citations: 175 N.Y. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Peter J. Garvey, Appellant, v. The Democratic General Committee of New York County et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 415–418

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Peter J. Garvey, Appellant, v. The Democratic General Committee of New York County et al., Respondents.
(Argued June 3, 1903;
decided June 23, 1903.)
Primary Election Law, § 11 — Mandamus to Compel Recognition as Member of Executive Committee of General Committee. An application for a peremptory writ of mandamus under section 11 of the Primary Election Law (L. 1898, ch. 179, amd. L. 1899, ch. 473) to compel the general committee of a county to recognize the relator as a member of the committee, and also to recognize as a member of the executive committee the person chosen by the relator and his associates, is properly denied where the relator has not been denied his rights as a member of the general committee, the person chosen is not named, no demand is made that any specific person should be recognized and no person has made any demand for such recognition.
People ex rel. Garvey v. Democratic Com., 82 App. Div. 173, affirmed.
Appeal from ail order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 22, 1903, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to recognize the relator and his associates as members of the Democratic General Committee, and dismissed such writ.
The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions.
Abram I. Elkus and Joseph M. Proskauer for appellant.
Max D. Steuer for respondents.
Mandamus should not issue. (In re Haebler v. N. Y. P. Exchange, 149 N. Y. 418; People ex rel. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 156 N. Y. 575; Matter of Guess, 16 Misc. Rep. 306; People ex rel. v. Cruger, 12 App. Div. 536; Matter of Grady, 15 App. Div. 504; Matter of Kennedy, 75 App. Div. 188.) Ho demand was made upon the respondents for the relief demanded. (People ex rel. v. Cruger, 12 App. Div. 536; People ex rel. v. Clausen, 50 App. Div. 286.) There is no averment that the respondents had notice that the relator and his colleagues from the ninth district had agreed upon a representative for the executive committee. (People ex rel. v. Cruger, 12 App. Div. 536; People ex rel. v. Clausen, 50 App. Div. 286.)

Opinion:
Gray, J.
The order of the Appellate Division has reversed, but not as matter of discretion, an order directing a peremptory writ of mandamus to issue on the petition of the relator, requiring the appellant, the Democratic General Committee of New York county, to recognize the relator and his associates, who had been duly elected members of the Democratic general committee by the Democratic electors of the ninth assembly district, at a primary election, held September 16, 1902, as members of that committee and, further, " to recognize as a member of the executive committee of the said committee the person chosen by the relator and his associates from the Ninth Assembly District," etc. The order of the Appellate Division, also, dismissed the proceeding.
I advise the affirmance of the order appealed from and for the following reasons. In the first place, the writ of mandamus will only issue to compel the performance of a specific and definite act. In this case, the duty commanded to be performed was indefinite and of possible dispute, or ambiguity; inasmuch as the person chosen for membership of the executive committee was not named.
In the second place, it appears from the return to the petition that the relator and his associates from the ninth assembly district were not denied the exercise of their rights as members of the general committee ; that they were accorded recognition and the right to vote upon all resolutions, except, possibly, upon the appointment of a committee on credentials, because of a protest having been filed to the seating of the delegates from the ninth assembly district; although it was answered to the petition that that resolution was unanimously carried.
In the third place, the person chosen from the ninth assembly district as a member of the executive committee was not named and no demand was made that any specific person should he recognized as the member of the executive committee. hior did any person make any demand to be recognized as the member of the executive committee chosen from the ninth assembly district.
These reasons, in my opinion, made the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus an error, for which the order of the Special Term was properly reversed.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.