Summary
This New York Appellate Division opinion affirms the dismissal of a taxpayer's lawsuit challenging a legislative resolution that retroactively increased the salaries of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The court held that the action was subject to a one-year statute of limitations rather than the six-year period for declaratory judgments, as the dispute centered on the proper disposition of public funds. Furthermore, because the plaintiff failed to timely join necessary parties who were subject to the court's jurisdiction, the entire action was properly dismissed as time-barred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the action is subject to the one‑year statute of limitations under CPLR 215 or the six‑year period for declaratory judgments under CPLR 213.
- Whether failure to timely join necessary parties that are subject to the court’s jurisdiction requires dismissal of the entire action.
Holdings
- The action is subject to the one‑year statute of limitations.
- Dismissal of the entire action is required when a necessary party is not joined within the limitations period.
Key quotations
“"Although declaratory judgment actions are typically governed by a six‑year statute of limitations, if the underlying dispute could have been resolved through an action or proceeding for which a specific, shorter limitations period governs, then such shorter period must be applied."” (at 1343)
Factual background
Plaintiff, a taxpayer, sued the State Comptroller in December 2019 seeking a declaration that a 2019 concurrent resolution increasing the salaries of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor was unconstitutional and an injunction against payment. The action was later amended to add Governor Hochul, former Governor Cuomo, former Lieutenant Governor Benjamin, and Lieutenant Governor Delgado as defendants.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court of Albany County granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division remanded for joinder of necessary parties, the plaintiff filed amended complaints, and the Supreme Court again granted summary judgment and dismissed the action. The Appellate Division now affirms.