Opinion
759 CA 20-00366
04-30-2021
Audrey Elaine SILLS, as Executor of the Estate of Angeline V. Sills, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joan ROYSTON, Defendant-Respondent. In the Matter of Audrey Elaine Sills, as Executor of the Estate of Angeline V. Sills, Deceased, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Fleet National Bank, Joan Royston, Kirk Richardson and Community Bank, N.A., Formerly Known as Wilber National Bank, Respondents-Respondents.
PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, HORNELL (HEATHER ODOM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JONATHAN B. FELLOWS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., FORMERLY KNOWN AS WILBER NATIONAL BANK.
PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, HORNELL (HEATHER ODOM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JONATHAN B. FELLOWS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., FORMERLY KNOWN AS WILBER NATIONAL BANK.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: After over two decades of litigation, involving multiple appeals to this Court ( Matter of Sills v. Fleet Natl. Bank , 81 A.D.3d 1422, 917 N.Y.S.2d 484 [4th Dept. 2011] ; Matter of Sills v. Fleet Natl. Bank , 81 A.D.3d 1424, 918 N.Y.S.2d 910 [4th Dept. 2011] ; Matter of Sills v. Fleet Natl. Bank [appeal Nos. 2 & 3], 81 A.D.3d 1425, 918 N.Y.S.2d 912 [4th Dept. 2011] ; Matter of Sills v. Fleet Natl. Bank , 81 A.D.3d 1426, 918 N.Y.S.2d 909 [4th Dept. 2011] ; Sills v. Royston [appeal Nos. 1 & 2], 78 A.D.3d 1621, 910 N.Y.S.2d 758 [4th Dept. 2010] ; Matter of Sills v. Fleet Natl. Bank [appeal No. 2], 32 A.D.3d 1157, 821 N.Y.S.2d 313 [4th Dept. 2006] ), plaintiff-petitioner (plaintiff) appeals from an order that, among other things, denied her motions seeking to hold defendant-respondent Joan Royston and respondent Kirk Richardson in civil contempt.
Subsequent to the order in this appeal, the parties to this action and proceeding executed a global settlement of all actions and proceedings. Royston, however, later sought to void the settlement agreement on various grounds. Supreme Court ultimately granted plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and directed Royston to comply with its terms.
"Inasmuch as the parties have executed a stipulation of settlement completely resolving the underlying dispute, we find that this appeal is now moot" ( Wegmans Food Mkts. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 245 A.D.2d 685, 685, 664 N.Y.S.2d 685 [3d Dept. 1997] ; see Lawyers Tit. Ins. Co. v. Weiser's Poultry Farm , 289 A.D.2d 739, 739, 733 N.Y.S.2d 925 [3d Dept. 2001] ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne , 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ), and does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Hearst Corp. , 50 N.Y.2d at 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ). No useful purpose would be served by modifying or reversing an order in a case that has been settled.