You are here: / / HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT...
, ,

HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUMMON THE NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the proper remedy for the failure to include a necessary party is to summon the missing party, not dismiss the action:​

The nonjoinder of necessary parties may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion, including for the first time on appeal” … . “Necessary parties are defined as ‘[p]ersons 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'” … . “The rule serves judicial economy by preventing a multiplicity of suits. It also insures fairness to third parties who ought not to be prejudiced or embarrassed by judgments purporting to bind their rights or interest where they have had no opportunity to be heard” …. “Dismissal of an action or proceeding for nonjoinder of a necessary party is only a last resort” …. Therefore, “[w]hen a necessary party has not been made a party and is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned” … .

Supreme Court improperly rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners failed to join necessary parties. The petitioners sought to annul so much of the Village Board’s resolution …  as appointed Tucci to his position [with the Village Fire Department], and the court granted that request. Since Tucci was a person “who might be”—and in fact was—”inequitably affected by a judgment” in this proceeding (CPLR 1001[a]), he was a necessary party … . Similarly, as the petitioners sought relief that could result in a change to the leadership of the Fire Department, the Board of Fire Wardens was also a necessary party … .

… [D]ismissal of this proceeding is not the appropriate remedy for nonjoinder of Tucci and the Board of Fire Wardens … . Instead, “[u]nder these circumstances, the appropriate procedure is for the Supreme Court to determine whether [those parties] can be summoned and, if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine whether the proceeding[ ] may nevertheless proceed in [their] absence, upon consideration of the factors set forth in CPLR 1001(b)” … . Matter of Riverside Hose Co., Inc. v Village of Tarrytown Vil. Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 04793, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a definition of “necessary parties” within the meaning of CPLR 1001(b) and an explanation of the proper procedure for dealing with the failure to join a necessary party.

 

You might also like
Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered
PLAINTIFF INSURER CAN SUE, AS A SUBROGEE, THE CLUB WHICH SERVED ALCOHOL TO ITS INSUREDS, WHO WERE VISIBLY INTOXICATED, PURSUANT TO THE DRAM SHOP ACT; THE INSUREDS WERE INJURED IN A SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT AND THE INSURER PAID OUT MORE THAN $500,000 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Questions of Fact Re: Whether a Deed Was Forged and Whether a Will Was Duly Executed
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY, SUA SPONTE, ORDERED A FRYE HEARING AFTER WHICH THE COMPLAINT AGAINST A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED, SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY USED A FRYE HEARING TO AVOID THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE.
Plaintiff Not Entitled to Summary Judgment—Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Plaintiff’s Interpretation of the Contract Was the Only Reasonable Interpretation (Rendering the Contract Ambiguous)
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STATEMENTS IN BOLD LETTERS ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE POST ON LINKEDIN MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE...