From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Podolsky v. Bloomberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2007
37 A.D.3d 354 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 327.

February 22, 2007.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered August 2, 2006, which, on respondents' cross motion, dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Ronald Podolsky, New York, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.


Petitioner argues that the eventual provision of the documents he requested does not moot this proceeding because he is challenging respondent Art Commission's decision to issue the challenged certificates without hearing his comments on the prehearing review of the documents in question. Assuming the petition can be read as alleging such a claim, petitioner did not offer any nonspeculative, nonhearsay factual pleadings to support his allegation that respondents had formulated a policy that no prehearing access to any documents would be allowed to anyone, and failed to plead facts suggesting that the challenged determinations were irrational. Therefore, the far-reaching remedy petitioner seeks is not available on this petition.


Summaries of

Podolsky v. Bloomberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 22, 2007
37 A.D.3d 354 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Podolsky v. Bloomberg

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of RONALD PODOLSKY, Appellant, v. MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, as…

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

Date published: Feb 22, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 354 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1491
830 N.Y.S.2d 145

Citing Cases

In Matter of Baptiste v. City Univ. of N.Y.

The petition alleges, "upon information and belief," that other non-Black students also were allowed to…

Dekom v. Trani

within the time limit for commencing an invalidation proceeding ( seeElection Law § 16–102[2] ).…