William Israel's Farm Cooperative v. Board of Standards & Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

William Israel's Farm Cooperative v. Board of Standards & Appeals

25 A.D.3d 517, 812 N.Y.S.2d 5

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 517 (William Israel's Farm Cooperative v. Board of Standards & Appeals) 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

William Israel's Farm Cooperative v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 25 A.D.3d 517, 812 N.Y.S.2d 5 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered November 24, 2004, denying this CPLR article 78 petition to annul the determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals, filed June 10, 2004, which had granted a variance to respondent Tribeach Holdings, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Petitioner did not seek to enjoin either the demolition of the former garage or the construction of the new building. The garage was razed over a year ago, and the new building’s superstructure is 75% complete. Therefore, petitioner’s appeal is moot (see e.g. Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727 [2004]). Were we to consider the merits, we would affirm. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered November 24, 2004, denying this CPLR article 78 petition to annul the determination of respondent Board of Standards and Appeals, filed June 10, 2004, which had granted a variance to respondent Tribeach Holdings, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Petitioner did not seek to enjoin either the demolition of the former garage or the construction of the new building. The garage was razed over a year ago, and the new building’s superstructure is 75% complete. Therefore, petitioner’s appeal is moot (see e.g. Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727 [2004]). Were we to consider the merits, we would affirm. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 517, 812 N.Y.S.2d 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-israels-farm-cooperative-v-board-of-standards-appeals-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack