legislatively mandated requirement in New York

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2023We agree with petitioners that they have standing to commence this proceeding. "[O]rdinarily, a [nonparty member] has no standing [*2]to challenge the internal affairs and operating functions of another political party" ( Matter of Nicolai v Kelleher , 45 AD3d 960, 962 [3d Dept 2007]), unless " 'the interests involved transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party' " ( Matter of Gross v Hoblock , 6 AD3d 933, 936 [3d Dept 2004] [ellipsis omitted], quoting Matter of Martin v Tutunjian , 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [3d Dept 1982]). "[T]he standing issue ultimately turns upon whether the

2004Inasmuch as the failure to file a Wilson-Pakula authorization ‘constitutes a fatal defect rather than a mere technicality’ (Matter of Maurer v Monescalchi, 264 AD2d 542, 543 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]; see Matter of Cosgrove v Sunderland, 253 AD2d 504 [1998]) and, hence, represents a challenge to a legislative mandate of the Election Law, we are satisfied that petitioner has standing.” The allegations of this petition do not set forth a challenge to the internal affairs or operating functions of the Working Families Party.

2004Inasmuch as the failure to file a Wilson-Pakula authorization “constitutes a fatal defect rather than a mere technicality” (Matter of Maurer v Monescalchi, 264 AD2d 542, 543 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]; see Matter of Cosgrove v Sunder-land, 253 AD2d 504 [1998]) and, hence, represents a challenge to a legislative mandate of the Election Law, we are satisfied that petitioner has standing.

2004Inasmuch as the failure to file a Wilson-Pakula authorization ‘constitutes a fatal defect rather than a mere technicality’ (Matter of Maurer v Monescalchi, 264 AD2d 542, 543 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]; see Matter of Cosgrove v Sunderland, 253 AD2d 504 [1998]) and, hence, represents a challenge to a legislative mandate of the Election Law, we are satisfied that petitioner has standing.” The allegations of this petition do not set forth a challenge to the internal affairs or operating functions of the Working Families Party.

2004Inasmuch as the failure to file a Wilson-Pakula authorization “constitutes a fatal defect rather than a mere technicality” (Matter of Maurer v Monescalchi, 264 AD2d 542, 543 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 816 [1999]; see Matter of Cosgrove v Sunder-land, 253 AD2d 504 [1998]) and, hence, represents a challenge to a legislative mandate of the Election Law, we are satisfied that petitioner has standing.

2011Petitioner is an aggrieved candidate within the meaning of Election Law § 16-102 inasmuch as he contends that respondents failed to follow “a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” and that he was thereby deprived of the opportunity to be nominated as a candidate (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935 [2004]; see Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098, 1099 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 963 [1985]; Matter of DiStefano v Kiggins, 254 AD2d 688 [1998]).

2004Where, however, the challenge is to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law, such as the content of a designating petition (see Matter of Cic cotti v Havel, 186 AD2d 979 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 754 [1992]; Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 963 [1985]), “the interests involved . . . transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party” (Matter of Martin v Tutunjian, 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [1982]) and standing will lie.

2011Petitioner is an aggrieved candidate within the meaning of Election Law § 16-102 inasmuch as he contends that respondents failed to follow “a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” and that he was thereby deprived of the opportunity to be nominated as a candidate (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935 [2004]; see Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098, 1099 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 963 [1985]; Matter of DiStefano v Kiggins, 254 AD2d 688 [1998]).

2004Where, however, the challenge is to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law, such as the content of a designating petition (see Matter of Cic cotti v Havel, 186 AD2d 979 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 754 [1992]; Matter of Liepshutz v Palmateer, 112 AD2d 1098 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 963 [1985]), “the interests involved . . . transcend the mere regulation of the affairs of a political party” (Matter of Martin v Tutunjian, 89 AD2d 1034, 1034 [1982]) and standing will lie.

2006Rather, petitioners’ challenge is directed “to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” that transcends the regulation of the internal affairs of a political party or the operating functions of a party and, thus, petitioners have standing (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935-936 [2004]; see Matter of Breslin v Conners, 10 AD3d 471, 473-474 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]; cf. Matter of Koppell v Garcia, 275 AD2d 587, 588 [2000]; Matter of Stempel v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 97 AD2d 647, 648 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 801 [1983]).

2004Standing has routinely been denied where the challenge is based on the lack of compliance with Election Law § 6-120, which has as its intended purpose the regulation of the internal affairs of a political party (see Matter of Sullivan v Longo, 286 AD2d 1002 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 601 [2001]; Matter of Koppell v Garcia, 275 AD2d 587 [2000]).

2011We agree with petitioner that the caucus rule passed by respondents, which mandated that only registered Republicans could be nominated for office at the caucus, violates Election Law § 6-120 (4) and is therefore invalid (see Matter of Grancio v Coveney, 96 AD2d 917 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 603 [1983]; see generally Matter of Rosenthal v Harwood, 35 NY2d 469, 475 [1974]).

2006Rather, petitioners’ challenge is directed “to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” that transcends the regulation of the internal affairs of a political party or the operating functions of a party and, thus, petitioners have standing (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935-936 [2004]; see Matter of Breslin v Conners, 10 AD3d 471, 473-474 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]; cf. Matter of Koppell v Garcia, 275 AD2d 587, 588 [2000]; Matter of Stempel v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 97 AD2d 647, 648 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 801 [1983]).

2006Rather, petitioners’ challenge is directed “to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” that transcends the regulation of the internal affairs of a political party or the operating functions of a party and, thus, petitioners have standing (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935-936 [2004]; see Matter of Breslin v Conners, 10 AD3d 471, 473-474 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]; cf. Matter of Koppell v Garcia, 275 AD2d 587, 588 [2000]; Matter of Stempel v Albany County Bd. of Elections, 97 AD2d 647, 648 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 801 [1983]).

2004A candidate of one party will be denied standing to commence a proceeding seeking to invalidate the designation of a candidate of an opposing party where “the underlying challenge is to the internal affairs and/or operating functions of a political party in its designation of candidates . . . rather [than] to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935 [2004]; see Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld, 35 NY2d 719, 720 [1974]; Matter of Rose v Smith, 220 AD2d 922, 924 [1995]).

2004A candidate of one party will be denied standing to commence a proceeding seeking to invalidate the designation of a candidate of an opposing party where “the underlying challenge is to the internal affairs and/or operating functions of a political party in its designation of candidates . . . rather [than] to a legislatively mandated requirement of the Election Law” (Matter of Gross v Hoblock, 6 AD3d 933, 935 [2004]; see Matter of Wydler v Cristenfeld, 35 NY2d 719, 720 [1974]; Matter of Rose v Smith, 220 AD2d 922, 924 [1995]).