Serafin v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serafin v. Wallace

117 A.D.2d 926, 499 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53178

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 1986·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

—Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered May 21, 1985 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals of the City of Albany granting a use variance.

In this proceeding, petitioners challenge a determination by the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals of the City of Albany which granted a use variance so that an existing structure could be renovated to house a Stewart’s Bread and Butter Shop. At the argument on this appeal, this court was informed that the structure has already been altered and the proposed store has been completed. Since the completion of the work renders the controversy in this case moot and [927] petitioners failed to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of this proceeding, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 247-248, affd 59 NY2d 849).

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

—Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Torraca, J.), entered May 21, 1985 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals of the City of Albany granting a use variance.

In this proceeding, petitioners challenge a determination by the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals of the City of Albany which granted a use variance so that an existing structure could be renovated to house a Stewart’s Bread and Butter Shop. At the argument on this appeal, this court was informed that the structure has already been altered and the proposed store has been completed. Since the completion of the work renders the controversy in this case moot and [927] petitioners failed to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of this proceeding, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 247-248, affd 59 NY2d 849).

Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.

Serafin v. Wallace, 117 A.D.2d 926, 499 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

117 A.D.2d 926 (Serafin v. Wallace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related