Opinion
2014-05-9
In the Matter of Jack BAILEY, et al., Petitioners–Plaintiffs, and Andrew DeWolf, Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF LYONS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent–Defendant–Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision) of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (John B. Nesbitt, A.J.), entered August 27, 2013 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. The judgment, among other things, granted the petition-complaint in part by enjoining respondent-defendant to have a Board of Trustee's approved dissolution plan in place by October 20, 2013, failing which the court would appoint a hearing officer to undertake that responsibility. Andrew DeWolf, Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant Pro Se. Nesbitt & Williams, Newark (Arthur B. Williams of Counsel), for Respondent–Defendant–Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision) of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (John B. Nesbitt, A.J.), entered August 27, 2013 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. The judgment, among other things, granted the petition-complaint in part by enjoining respondent-defendant to have a Board of Trustee's approved dissolution plan in place by October 20, 2013, failing which the court would appoint a hearing officer to undertake that responsibility.
Andrew DeWolf, Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant Pro Se. Nesbitt & Williams, Newark (Arthur B. Williams of Counsel), for Respondent–Defendant–Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
We dismiss the appeal as moot because, once the dissolution plan at issue was adopted on September 30, 2013, no justiciable controversy remained upon which a declaratory judgment could be made or injunctive relief could be granted. “It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876). This case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see id. at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.