Pyramid Co. v. Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pyramid Co. v. Planning Board

34 A.D.3d 1306, 825 N.Y.S.2d 602

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1306 (Pyramid Co. v. Planning Board) 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

Pyramid Co. v. Planning Board, 34 A.D.3d 1306, 825 N.Y.S.2d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered February 1, 2006. The order held respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC and Stark Family Partnership, LP in contempt of an order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC (COR) and Stark Family Partnership, LP (Stark) and the two intervenors herein appeal from an order that held COR and Stark in contempt of this Court’s order in which we reversed the judgment of Supreme Court and granted the amended petition in part by annulling the determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Watertown (Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 AD3d 1312 [2005], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 803 [2006]). Because the contempt has been purged pursuant to the provisions of the contempt order and petitioners have waived the fine imposed in the contempt order, the appellants are no longer aggrieved and the issues raised on these appeals therefore are moot (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). This case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see id. at 714-715). Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered February 1, 2006. The order held respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC and Stark Family Partnership, LP in contempt of an order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC (COR) and Stark Family Partnership, LP (Stark) and the two intervenors herein appeal from an order that held COR and Stark in contempt of this Court’s order in which we reversed the judgment of Supreme Court and granted the amended petition in part by annulling the determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Watertown (Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 AD3d 1312 [2005], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 803 [2006]). Because the contempt has been purged pursuant to the provisions of the contempt order and petitioners have waived the fine imposed in the contempt order, the appellants are no longer aggrieved and the issues raised on these appeals therefore are moot (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). This case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see id. at 714-715). Present—Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1306, 825 N.Y.S.2d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pyramid-co-v-planning-board-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack