Matter of Sahid v. 1065 Park Ave. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Sahid v. 1065 Park Ave. Corp.

140 A.D.3d 521, 33 N.Y.S.3d 257

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 2016·No. 1469 158204/14·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered March 20, 2015, which denied the motion and dismissed the petition to set aside two elections held on June 4, 2014 by defendant cooperative corporation and direct new elections, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

After the order on appeal was rendered and before the determination on this appeal, the next regularly-scheduled election for the cooperative’s board of directors was held, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Paraskevopoulos v Stavropoulos, 65 AD3d 1153 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Frascati v Irondequoit Nightstick Club, Inc., 101 AD3d 1602 [4th Dept 2012]). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (id.; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would find

petitioner’s arguments unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered March 20, 2015, which denied the motion and dismissed the petition to set aside two elections held on June 4, 2014 by defendant cooperative corporation and direct new elections, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

After the order on appeal was rendered and before the determination on this appeal, the next regularly-scheduled election for the cooperative’s board of directors was held, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Paraskevopoulos v Stavropoulos, 65 AD3d 1153 [2d Dept 2009]; Matter of Frascati v Irondequoit Nightstick Club, Inc., 101 AD3d 1602 [4th Dept 2012]). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (id.; see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would find

petitioner’s arguments unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Matter of Sahid v. 1065 Park Ave. Corp., 140 A.D.3d 521, 33 N.Y.S.3d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

140 A.D.3d 521 (Matter of Sahid v. 1065 Park Ave. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related