| Matter of Loehr v Durand |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01699 |
| Decided on March 20, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
PETER W. LOEHR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (BEEZLY J. KIERNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered June 5, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition and amendments.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to compel respondent to provide certain documents sought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law ([FOIL] Public Officers Law art 6). Petitioner appeals from a judgment that dismissed the petition and amendments. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Supreme Court properly granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failing to name a necessary party.
A party whose interest may be adversely affected by a potential judgment must be made a party in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 1001 [a]; Matter of Martin v Ronan, 47 NY2d 486, 490 [1979]; Matter of Spence v Cahill, 300 AD2d 992, 992-993 [4th Dept 2002], lv denied 1 NY3d 508 [2004]). Here, we conclude that the State University of New York (SUNY) FOIL Appeals Office is a necessary party inasmuch as it made the final determinations as to petitioner's FOIL requests (see generally Matter of A & F Scaccia Realty Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 200 AD3d 875, 877 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of McNeill v Town Bd. of Town of Ithaca, 260 AD2d 829, 830 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 812 [1999]) and that respondent is not a proper party because she did not render the final determinations as to petitioner's FOIL requests (see Matter of La Russo v Neuringer, 105 AD3d 743, 744 [2d Dept 2013]; see also Matter of Schulz v Town of Hopewell Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 163 AD3d 1477, 1478 [4th Dept 2018]). In light of petitioner's failure to include a necessary party, the petition was properly dismissed (see Spence, 300 AD2d at 992-993; McNeill, 260 AD2d at 829). Finally, we deny petitioner's request to add the necessary party or parties inasmuch as the statute of limitations has expired (see generally Matter of Lodge v D'Aliso, 2 AD3d 525, 526 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]).
Entered: March 20, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court