Opinion
639.1 CA 21-00292
08-26-2021
In the Matter of PHARAOHS GC, INC., Petitioner-Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY, Respondent-Defendant-Appellant.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (SARAH L. ROSENBLUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (BRETT D. TOKARCZYK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (SARAH L. ROSENBLUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (BRETT D. TOKARCZYK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs and the judgment is vacated.
Memorandum: Petitioner-plaintiff commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action challenging COVID-19 pandemic-related guidance issued by respondent-defendant New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) that, among other things, prohibited exotic dancing during the pandemic at licensed bars and restaurants. SLA appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, permanently enjoined SLA from enforcing the guidance. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
The guidance at issue is no longer in effect, and the parties correctly concede that this appeal is moot (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki , 100 N.Y.2d 801, 810-811, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 [2003], cert denied 540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 [2003] ). Contrary to SLA's contention, the issue here is not likely to recur (see generally id. at 811-812, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 ; People v. Rikers Is. Corr. Facility Warden , 112 A.D.3d 1350, 1351, 976 N.Y.S.2d 915 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 864, 986 N.Y.S.2d 18, 9 N.E.3d 368 [2014] ), and it "is not of the type that typically evades review" ( Wisholek v. Douglas , 97 N.Y.2d 740, 742, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 [2002] ). Therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (cf. generally Coleman v. Daines , 19 N.Y.3d 1087, 1090, 955 N.Y.S.2d 831, 979 N.E.2d 1158 [2012] ).
As a final matter, " ‘in order to prevent [the] judgment which is unreviewable for mootness from spawning any legal consequences or precedent,’ " we vacate the judgment ( Matter of Thrall v. CNY Centro, Inc. , 89 A.D.3d 1449, 1451, 932 N.Y.S.2d 295 [4th Dept. 2011], lv dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 898, 949 N.Y.S.2d 341, 972 N.E.2d 507 [2012], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne , 50 N.Y.2d 707, 718, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ; see Matter of Sportsmen's Tavern LLC v. New York State Liq. Auth. , 195 A.D.3d 1557, 1559, 150 N.Y.S.3d 453 [4th Dept. 2021] ).