Steckmeyer v. Whalen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steckmeyer v. Whalen

269 A.D.2d 855, 703 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 855 (Steckmeyer v. Whalen) 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

Steckmeyer v. Whalen, 269 A.D.2d 855, 703 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, adjourning for 30 days an initial hearing concerning professional misconduct charges against plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had insufficient time to prepare his defense to the charges. We granted defendants’ motion for a stay of that order, thereby permitting the administrative hearing to proceed. Defendants’ appeal is therefore moot, and defendants have failed to show that this [856]*856case falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.— Injunction.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.

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

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, adjourning for 30 days an initial hearing concerning professional misconduct charges against plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had insufficient time to prepare his defense to the charges. We granted defendants’ motion for a stay of that order, thereby permitting the administrative hearing to proceed. Defendants’ appeal is therefore moot, and defendants have failed to show that this [856]*856case falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.— Injunction.) Present — Green, A. P. J., Hayes, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 855, 703 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steckmeyer-v-whalen-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack