Schulz v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulz v. State of New York

221 A.D.2d 753, 633 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 753 (Schulz v. State of New York) 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

Schulz v. State of New York, 221 A.D.2d 753, 633 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered October 14, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition / complaint as moot.

Petitioners commenced this matter seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the failure of the State Legislature to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1994-1995 (hereinafter the budget) by the April 1, 1994 deadline constituted a violation of the State Constitution. Supreme Court dismissed the matter, [754]*754basing its determination upon the fact that the State budget for the 1994-1995 fiscal year had been passed on June 7, 1994, rendering petitioners’ case moot.

We disagree. As this Court recently held in Matter of Schulz v Silver (212 AD2d 293), a case wherein a similar challenge was made regarding the Legislature’s failure to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1995-1996, this matter embodies the elements necessary to qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine. Nonetheless, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contentions regarding the merits of this case. Because the same issues were raised by petitioner and rejected by this Court in Matter of Schulz v Silver (supra), we affirm for the reasons set forth therein.

Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered October 14, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition / complaint as moot.

Petitioners commenced this matter seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the failure of the State Legislature to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1994-1995 (hereinafter the budget) by the April 1, 1994 deadline constituted a violation of the State Constitution. Supreme Court dismissed the matter, [754]*754basing its determination upon the fact that the State budget for the 1994-1995 fiscal year had been passed on June 7, 1994, rendering petitioners’ case moot.

We disagree. As this Court recently held in Matter of Schulz v Silver (212 AD2d 293), a case wherein a similar challenge was made regarding the Legislature’s failure to pass the State budget for the fiscal year 1995-1996, this matter embodies the elements necessary to qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine. Nonetheless, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contentions regarding the merits of this case. Because the same issues were raised by petitioner and rejected by this Court in Matter of Schulz v Silver (supra), we affirm for the reasons set forth therein.

Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 753, 633 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulz-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack