Doe v. Zucker

N.D. New York

Doe v. Zucker

DecidedMarch 25, 2025

Docket1:17-cv-01005

StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Zucker (Doe v. Zucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Zucker, (N.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ JOHN DOE, a fictitious name, Petitioner, 1:17-CV-1005 v. (GTS/CFH) HOWARD ZUCKER, M.D., in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ JEFFREY J. SHERRIN, ESQ. Counsel for Petitioner MICHAEL Y. HAWRYLCHAK, ESQ. 54 State Street, 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207

CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP ROBERT LOUIS BEGLEITER, ESQ. Counsel for Respondent GARY MALONE, ESQ. 335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor HARRISON McAVOY, ESQ. New York, NY 10017 MARGAUX POUEYMIROU, ESQ. MATTHEW J. KOENIG, ESQ. NOELLE M. YASSO, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER This action, filed by John Doe (“Petitioner”) against New York State Commissioner of Health Dr. Howard Zucker (“Respondent”), returns to this Court following the Second Circuit’s issuance of a Mandate on March 7, 2025, vacating this Court’s Order of June 30, 20203, and remanding this case with instructions to dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 277.) For the reasons stated in the Second Circuit’s Mandate, this Court dismisses Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition for lack of subject-matter Jurisdiction. (/d.) Furthermore, because Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition is being dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness, that dismissal is without prejudice. See, e.g.,U.S. v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-Fahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 477-78 (1916); Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 391 F. App’x 901, 903 (2d Cir. 2010); Bryant v. Wyman, 419 F.2d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1969); Amador v. A/S Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi, 224 F.2d 437, 441-42 (2d Cir. 1955). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition (Dkt. No. 161) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a Judgment for Respondent and close this action. Dated: March 25, 2025 Syracuse, New York Le. — ) Likey Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ JOHN DOE, a fictitious name, Petitioner, 1:17-CV-1005 v. (GTS/CFH) HOWARD ZUCKER, M.D., in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: O'CONNELL & ARONOWITZ JEFFREY J. SHERRIN, ESQ. Counsel for Petitioner MICHAEL Y. HAWRYLCHAK, ESQ. 54 State Street, 9th Floor Albany, NY 12207

CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP ROBERT LOUIS BEGLEITER, ESQ. Counsel for Respondent GARY MALONE, ESQ. 335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor HARRISON McAVOY, ESQ. New York, NY 10017 MARGAUX POUEYMIROU, ESQ. MATTHEW J. KOENIG, ESQ. NOELLE M. YASSO, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER This action, filed by John Doe (“Petitioner”) against New York State Commissioner of Health Dr. Howard Zucker (“Respondent”), returns to this Court following the Second Circuit’s issuance of a Mandate on March 7, 2025, vacating this Court’s Order of June 30, 20203, and remanding this case with instructions to dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 277.) For the reasons stated in the Second Circuit’s Mandate, this Court dismisses Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition for lack of subject-matter Jurisdiction. (/d.) Furthermore, because Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition is being dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness, that dismissal is without prejudice. See, e.g.,U.S. v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-Fahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 477-78 (1916); Seijas v. Republic of Argentina, 391 F. App’x 901, 903 (2d Cir. 2010); Bryant v. Wyman, 419 F.2d 109, 110 (2d Cir. 1969); Amador v. A/S Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi, 224 F.2d 437, 441-42 (2d Cir. 1955). ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition (Dkt. No. 161) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall issue a Judgment for Respondent and close this action. Dated: March 25, 2025 Syracuse, New York Le. — ) Likey Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. Zucker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-zucker-nynd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack