Opinion
382 CA 17–01301
03-23-2018
In the Matter of CAMPAIGN FOR BUFFALO HISTORY ARCHITECTURE & CULTURE, INC., Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, The Crosby Company, and Ellicott Development Co., Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.
LIPPES & LIPPES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT. TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (JESSICA M. LAZARIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT CITY OF BUFFALO.
LIPPES & LIPPES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (JESSICA M. LAZARIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT CITY OF BUFFALO.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
The challenge of petitioner-plaintiff (petitioner) to the determination of the Common Council of respondent-defendant City of Buffalo is moot because petitioner did not seek any injunctive relief from this Court during the pendency of this appeal, and the subject building has been demolished (see Citizens for St. Patrick's v. City of Watervliet City Council, 126 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 5 N.Y.S.3d 582 [3d Dept. 2015] ; Solow v. Imre Beauty Salon, 34 A.D.2d 901, 901, 311 N.Y.S.2d 815 [1st Dept. 1970] ; see also Lubelle v. Rochester Preserv. Bd., 158 A.D.2d 975, 976, 551 N.Y.S.2d 127 [4th Dept. 1990], lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 710, 556 N.Y.S.2d 532, 555 N.E.2d 929 [1990] ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ). This appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Contrary to petitioner's contention, "the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply because ‘[t]here is a realistic likelihood that the issues presented here will recur [in other cases] with an adequately developed record and with a timely opportunity for review’ " ( Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v. New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 N.Y.3d 727, 730, 778 N.Y.S.2d 740, 811 N.E.2d 2 [2004] ; see generally Hearst Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.