In an August 9, 2010, decision by Justice Driscoll in connection with petitioner-candidate’s special proceeding against respondent-committee chairman for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Election Law, and on respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition on grounds of failure to join necessary parties and the Statute of Frauds, the court granted respondent’s motion, holding that the petition failed to join the New York State Republican Party (“NY GOP”) and specific committee members as necessary parties to a proceeding in which petitioner was challenging the NY GOP’s rules and procedures; and 2) the action could not proceed in the absence of such necessary parties because (a) petitioner had another effective remedy in that she could still become the NY GOP’s nominee for the office she seeks, (b) the NY GOP would be directly affected and potentially prejudiced by a substantive decision from the court, (c) petitioner could have avoided such prejudice by naming the NY GOP as a party, (d) it would be inappropriate for the court to issue a protective provision in an order without input from the NY GOP whose rules and processes were at issue; and (e) an effective judgment also could not be issued by the court without input from the NY GOP. The court further held that the petition should be dismissed even if the necessary parties had been named or otherwise excused because petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s authority to nominate another candidate for political office was time barred under the Election Law. Finally, the court held that respondent’s alleged oral promise in 2008 to nominate an altogether different candidate in 2010 was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.