Opinion
2021-05569 Index No. 604022/21
07-05-2023
In the Matter of Amy MORLEY, et al., appellants, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY, respondent.
Scott Lockwood, Deer Park, NY, for appellants. Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency, Hauppauge, NY (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), respondent pro se.
Scott Lockwood, Deer Park, NY, for appellants.
Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency, Hauppauge, NY (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), respondent pro se.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency to reinstate the driver license of the petitioner Amy Morley, which was suspended on December 3, 2020, and the driver license of the petitioner Katherine Alfaro, which was suspended on October 9, 2020, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Maureen T. Liccione, J.), dated June 30, 2021. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 23, 2022, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
Since the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency has vacated the temporary suspensions of the petitioners’ driver licenses, any determination by this Court with respect to this proceeding will not directly affect the rights of the parties (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; Matter of Pawelsky v. Goggin, 175 A.D.3d 1413, 106 N.Y.S.3d 614 ; Matter of Walters v. Delligatti, 78 A.D.3d 853, 854, 910 N.Y.S.2d 372 ). In addition, the matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; Matter of Aguilera v. Annucci, 167 A.D.3d 1000, 88 N.Y.S.3d 902 ; see also Matter of Dolce v. Nassau County Traffic & Parking Violations Agency, 7 N.Y.3d 492, 825 N.Y.S.2d 663, 859 N.E.2d 469 ; People v. Karathanos, 77 Misc.3d 126[A], 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 51105[U], 2022 WL 16955224 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists.] ). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as academic.
IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.