Matter of Pyne v. Incorporated Vil. of Southampton Bd. of Historic Preserv. & Architectural Review

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Pyne v. Incorporated Vil. of Southampton Bd. of Historic Preserv. & Architectural Review

2017 NY Slip Op 2427, 148 A.D.3d 1155, 50 N.Y.S.3d 451

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2017

Docket2015-02153

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2427 (Matter of Pyne v. Incorporated Vil. of Southampton Bd. of Historic Preserv. & Architectural Review) 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

Matter of Pyne v. Incorporated Vil. of Southampton Bd. of Historic Preserv. & Architectural Review, 2017 NY Slip Op 2427, 148 A.D.3d 1155, 50 N.Y.S.3d 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Incorporated Village of Southampton Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review dated May 14, 2014, granting the application of the respondents Farrell Building Company and F.A. East End, LLC, for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a single-family residence in the Southampton Village Historic District, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated December 12, 2014, which denied the petition and granted the cross motion of the respondents Farrell Building Company and F.A. East End, LLC, to dismiss the proceeding.

Motion by the respondents Farrell Building Company and *1156 F.A. East End, LLC, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 18, 2015, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

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

This appeal has been rendered academic, as the construction of the dwelling at issue, which was not undertaken in bad faith, is complete, a certificate of occupancy has been issued to the respondent property owner, and this case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004]; Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 174 [2002]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715 [1980]).

Rivera, J.R, Leventhal, Hall and Duffy, 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 to review a determination of the Incorporated Village of Southampton Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review dated May 14, 2014, granting the application of the respondents Farrell Building Company and F.A. East End, LLC, for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a single-family residence in the Southampton Village Historic District, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated December 12, 2014, which denied the petition and granted the cross motion of the respondents Farrell Building Company and F.A. East End, LLC, to dismiss the proceeding.

Motion by the respondents Farrell Building Company and *1156 F.A. East End, LLC, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 18, 2015, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

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

This appeal has been rendered academic, as the construction of the dwelling at issue, which was not undertaken in bad faith, is complete, a certificate of occupancy has been issued to the respondent property owner, and this case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004]; Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 174 [2002]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715 [1980]).

Rivera, J.R, Leventhal, Hall and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2427, 148 A.D.3d 1155, 50 N.Y.S.3d 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pyne-v-incorporated-vil-of-southampton-bd-of-historic-preserv-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack