Matter of Conroy v State Comm. of Independence Party of N.Y.
Annotate this Case[*1] In the Matter of Robert Conroy et al., Appellants,
v
State Committee of the Independence Party of New York et al., Respondents.
Argued April 24, 2008; decided June 10, 2008
Matter of Conroy v State Comm. of Independence Party of N.Y., 43 AD3d 834, affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Harry Kresky, New York City, Heller Ehrman LLP (Mark A. Picard of counsel) and Michael A. Hardy for appellants.
A. Joshua Ehrlich, Albany, for respondents.
{**10 NY3d at 897} OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
In June 2007, respondent New York State Committee of the Independence Party (the State Committee) adopted various amendments to its party rules. Among the amendments adopted was a rule (art VI, § 11) that states: [*2]"Authorizations in a City of one million or more. Notwithstanding any rule or by-law to the contrary, authorizations for all public offices to be elected in a city of one million or more that are made pursuant to section 6-120 of the Election Law, shall be made by the executive committee of the state committee."
Petitioners, chairpersons of the Independence Party County Committees in Kings, New York, Queens and Richmond Counties (the County Committees), brought this proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate this party rule. The County Committees principally argued that the party rule conflicted with Election Law § 6-120 (3).
Supreme Court invalidated the rule in its entirety, concluding that it violated Election Law § 6-120 (3) because authorizations for citywide offices in New York City (e.g., Mayor) must be issued "by a majority vote of those present at a joint meeting of the executive committee of each of the county committees of the party." The Appellate Division modified. Recognizing the State Committee's concession that the party rule was inconsistent with Election Law § 6-120 (3) for authorizations of candidates for citywide offices in the City of New York, the Appellate Division held that the party rule was invalid to the extent it purported to grant the State Committee such authority. However, the court further held that the State Committee{**10 NY3d at 898} properly exercised its authority to promulgate the party rule vesting in its Executive Committee the power to issue certificates of authorization for non-citywide public offices in the City of New York. We granted the County Committees leave to appeal and now affirm.
Under Election Law § 6-120 (3), a political party may grant the authority to issue certificates of authorization, or Wilson-Pakula certificates, to its state committee (see Matter of Master v Pohanka, 10 NY3d 620 [decided today]). The statute contains only one exception to this rule: where a "designation or nomination is for an office to be filled by all the voters of the city of New York" (Election Law § 6-120 [3]). In such a case, the "authorization must be by a majority vote of those present at a joint meeting of the executive committees of each of the county committees of the party within the city of New York" (id.). Thus, the Independence Party rule at issue does not conflict with Election Law § 6-120 (3) insofar as it vests in the Executive Committee of the State Committee the authority to designate or nominate nonparty members for non-citywide public offices in the City of New York.
The County Committees' remaining contention lacks merit.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, [*3]Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
