In re DeVivo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re DeVivo

47 A.D.3d 811, 849 N.Y.S.2d 178

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 811 (In re DeVivo) 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

In re DeVivo, 47 A.D.3d 811, 849 N.Y.S.2d 178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR 3102 (c) to obtain preaction disclosure, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated December 20, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that the petitioner has commenced the action for which he allegedly needed the pre-action disclosure, any determination by this Court with respect to the denial of the petition for such disclosure would not directly affect the parties’ rights (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Since the matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714), we dismiss the appeal as academic. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR 3102 (c) to obtain preaction disclosure, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated December 20, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that the petitioner has commenced the action for which he allegedly needed the pre-action disclosure, any determination by this Court with respect to the denial of the petition for such disclosure would not directly affect the parties’ rights (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Since the matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714), we dismiss the appeal as academic. Crane, J.P., Fisher, Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 811, 849 N.Y.S.2d 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-devivo-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack