Garrick v. Tomlins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garrick v. Tomlins

24 A.D.3d 763, 806 N.Y.S.2d 875

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 763 (Garrick v. Tomlins) 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

Garrick v. Tomlins, 24 A.D.3d 763, 806 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CFLR article 78, in which [764]*764the purported counterclaim of Tracy Garrick for declaratory and injunctive relief was severed, Tracy Garrick appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 13, 2004, as granted the motion of Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center, for summary judgment dismissing the purported counterclaim.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center.

In view of the fact that a stipulation of settlement dated March 5, 2004, between Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center, and the Village of Wappingers Falls purporting to legalize the use in question was entered into after issuance of the order under review, the appeal has been rendered academic and therefore must be dismissed (see Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v Suffolk County, 17 AD3d 371 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CFLR article 78, in which [764]*764the purported counterclaim of Tracy Garrick for declaratory and injunctive relief was severed, Tracy Garrick appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated January 13, 2004, as granted the motion of Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center, for summary judgment dismissing the purported counterclaim.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondent Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center.

In view of the fact that a stipulation of settlement dated March 5, 2004, between Barbara Tomlins, doing business as Humpty Dumpty Day Care Center, and the Village of Wappingers Falls purporting to legalize the use in question was entered into after issuance of the order under review, the appeal has been rendered academic and therefore must be dismissed (see Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v Suffolk County, 17 AD3d 371 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 763, 806 N.Y.S.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrick-v-tomlins-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack