In this case, Mr. Lippa's explanation concerning his refusal to consider Mr. Clark's noise complaints is both valid and rational in its reasoning. Mr. Lippa clearly stated that the petitioner's failure to raise claims in previous proceedings, as well as his conflicting testimony "color[ed] the reliability and legitimacy of Mr. Clark's testimony." Although others might view Mr. Clark 's claims more favorably, that fact does not make Mr. Lippa's decision arbitrary and [*3]capricious since it has a rational basis. "[I]t is well settled that a court many not substitute its judgment for that of a board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion." (See Id. at 232).
The failure to join a necessary party requires dismissal of an action if the action cannot be adjudicated in that party's absence (See CPLR §§ 1001(a), 1003 & 3211(a)(10). A necessary party is defined as, "persons who ought to be joined as 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." (See CPLR § 1001(a)). In suits involving public assistance programs, the governmental entity whose policies are the subject of the plaintiffs' challenge is a necessary party." (See Joanne S. v. Carey, 115 AD2d 4, 10 (1st Dept. 1986)). When the court cannot obtain jurisdiction over a person who should be joined under [CPLR §1001(a)] the court must decide whether to dismiss the case or allow the action to proceed, as justice requires. (See CPLR §1001(b)). In determining the appropriate course of action, the court must consider five factors; [1] Whether plaintiff has another effective remedy if the action is dismissed, [2] the prejudice to the defendant if the