Opinion
February 26, 1998
Inasmuch as respondent no longer holds the office from which petitioner seeks to have him removed, this proceeding has become moot (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714; Matter of DeFalco v. Doetsch, 208 A.D.2d 1047, 1048). Furthermore, we are not convinced that the issues presented are such as to warrant review despite their mootness (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, supra, at 714-715). Were we to address the merits of petitioner's allegations, however, we would be inclined to dismiss the petition for the proof does not, in our view, demonstrate that respondent engaged in the kind of "unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty" (Matter of Salvador v. Naylor, 222 A.D.2d 931, 932) that would justify the drastic remedy of removal from office (see, Matter of Morin v. Gallagher, 221 A.D.2d 765; Matter of Deats v. Carpenter, 61 A.D.2d 320, 322; compare, Matter of West v. Grant, 243 A.D.2d 815, 816-817; Matter of DeFalco v. Doetsch, supra, at 1049-1050; Matter of Swope v. Kean, 71 A.D.2d 972).
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.