Opinion
2012-11030, Index No. 149/12.
11-08-2017
In the Matter of Lena BODIN, et al., petitioners/ plaintiffs-appellants, v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents/defendants-respondents, et al., respondents/defendants.
Susan H. Shapiro, Nanuet, NY (Daniel Richmond of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-appellants. Michael L. Klein, Town Attorney, Suffern, NY (Janice Gittelman and Michael Specht of counsel), for respondents/defendants-respondents Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, and Town of Ramapo. Terry Rice, Suffern, NY, for respondent/defendant-respondent Scenic Development, LLC.
Susan H. Shapiro, Nanuet, NY (Daniel Richmond of counsel), for petitioners/plaintiffs-appellants.
Michael L. Klein, Town Attorney, Suffern, NY (Janice Gittelman and Michael Specht of counsel), for respondents/defendants-respondents Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, and Town of Ramapo.
Terry Rice, Suffern, NY, for respondent/defendant-respondent Scenic Development, LLC.
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review three determinations of the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, all dated December 27, 2011, which granted the applications of the respondent Scenic Development, LLC, for subdivision and site plan approval of the subject property, and action for injunctive relief, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated September 10, 2012, as dismissed the first and third through eleventh causes of action.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
This appeal has been rendered academic by the determinations of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo dated March 22, 2013, granting the applications of the respondent Scenic Development, LLC, for final subdivision and site plan approval of the subject property. Since the issues raised herein have been addressed on the appeal in Matter of Bodin v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo , ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2014–07005; decided herewith], the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 ; Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; see also Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 671, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 ; Matter of Aloya v. Planning Bd. of Town of Stony Point, 93 N.Y.2d 334, 690 N.Y.S.2d 475, 712 N.E.2d 644 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.