Guziec v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guziec v. Woods

171 A.D.2d 1082, 579 N.Y.S.2d 609

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 1082 (Guziec v. Woods) 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

Guziec v. Woods, 171 A.D.2d 1082, 579 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from a judgment which affirmed the determination of the City of Dunkirk Zoning Board of Appeals granting a seasonal variance to respondents Runfola and Corsi to operate a hot dog stand on Runfola’s property. Since the variance at issue expired by its own terms on November 1, 1989, this appeal is rendered moot (see, Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 AD2d 842, 843). Moreover, we conclude that the issue presented is not of such general interest or public importance that exception to the mootness doctrine is warranted (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715; cf., Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 248, affd 59 NY2d 849). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from a judgment which affirmed the determination of the City of Dunkirk Zoning Board of Appeals granting a seasonal variance to respondents Runfola and Corsi to operate a hot dog stand on Runfola’s property. Since the variance at issue expired by its own terms on November 1, 1989, this appeal is rendered moot (see, Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 AD2d 842, 843). Moreover, we conclude that the issue presented is not of such general interest or public importance that exception to the mootness doctrine is warranted (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715; cf., Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 248, affd 59 NY2d 849). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J. — Article 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 1082, 579 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guziec-v-woods-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack