From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re of Peconic Baykeeper v. Suffolk County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 2006
28 A.D.3d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-00155.

April 18, 2006.

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review Resolution No. 1919-2003 of the Suffolk County Legislature, which determined that the extension of a 2002 Vector Control Plan into the year 2004 constituted a Type II action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8), and approved the extension, and an action, inter alia, to enjoin the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control, from performing work under the 2002 Vector Control Plan in 2004, Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Legislature, Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality, Suffolk County Department of Public Works, and Dominick Ninivaggi appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated November 12, 2004, which, among other things, granted the petition to the extent of annulling the determination that the extension into the year 2004 constituted a Type II action, and enjoined them from commencing or continuing work under the 2002 Vector Control Plan as extended into 2004.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for appellants.

Karl S. Coplan, White Plains, N.Y. (Jessica Astrof on the brief), for respondents.

Before: Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

As there is no more work to be performed pursuant to the 2002 Vector Control Plan as extended into 2004, any determination by this Court with respect to the merits of the instant hybrid proceeding and action will not directly affect the parties' rights ( see Barrett Foods Corp. v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 144 AD2d 410, 411). Since the matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County, 17 AD3d 371, 372), the appeal is dismissed as academic.


Summaries of

In re of Peconic Baykeeper v. Suffolk County

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 2006
28 A.D.3d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

In re of Peconic Baykeeper v. Suffolk County

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v. SUFFOLK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 18, 2006

Citations

28 A.D.3d 669 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2898
813 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

Thomas Bucaro v. Tomas Morales

Ordered that the appeal and the cross appeal from the amended judgment are dismissed as academic, without…

In re Milcon v. Freeport Union Free

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing…