Cuevas v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuevas v. Perales

169 A.D.2d 700, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 432

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 700 (Cuevas v. Perales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cuevas v. Perales, 169 A.D.2d 700, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring 18 NYCRR 352.7 (k) invalid, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated August 22, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment and for certification of class action status, and granted the defendants’ separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of this action, the plaintiffs in fact received all of the benefits to which they claimed entitlement under the disputed regulation. The dispute is therefore academic, and this court declines to consider the questions now raised on this appeal (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners [People], 72 NY2d 307, 311, cert denied 488 US 966; [701]*701Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713; see generally, Siegel, NY Prac § 525; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac §§ 70:54, 70:57, 70:93). Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for a judgment declaring 18 NYCRR 352.7 (k) invalid, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated August 22, 1988, which denied their motion for summary judgment and for certification of class action status, and granted the defendants’ separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of this action, the plaintiffs in fact received all of the benefits to which they claimed entitlement under the disputed regulation. The dispute is therefore academic, and this court declines to consider the questions now raised on this appeal (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners [People], 72 NY2d 307, 311, cert denied 488 US 966; [701]*701Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713; see generally, Siegel, NY Prac § 525; 10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac §§ 70:54, 70:57, 70:93). Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 700, 565 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuevas-v-perales-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack