Fullerton Land Development, Ltd. v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fullerton Land Development, Ltd. v. Meyer

292 A.D.2d 607, 739 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3193

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 607 (Fullerton Land Development, Ltd. v. Meyer) 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

Fullerton Land Development, Ltd. v. Meyer, 292 A.D.2d 607, 739 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the City of Yonkers Department of Housing and Buildings, dated July 13, 2000, directing a stop-work order with respect to certain real property, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), dated November 28, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

“[A]n appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Since the building permit under which the work commenced expired by its own terms on April 18, 2001, the parties’ rights would not be affected by a judgment annulling the determination directing a stop-work order. Thus, this appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of Bath Petroleum Stor. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 272 AD2d 746, 747). Moreover, the record before us fails to present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra at 714-715). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the City of Yonkers Department of Housing and Buildings, dated July 13, 2000, directing a stop-work order with respect to certain real property, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), dated November 28, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

“[A]n appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Since the building permit under which the work commenced expired by its own terms on April 18, 2001, the parties’ rights would not be affected by a judgment annulling the determination directing a stop-work order. Thus, this appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of Bath Petroleum Stor. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 272 AD2d 746, 747). Moreover, the record before us fails to present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra at 714-715). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 607, 739 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fullerton-land-development-ltd-v-meyer-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack