From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Paden v. Planning Bd., Mamakating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 9, 2000
270 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 9, 2000

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered February 16, 1999 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a site plan approval by respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating.

Norton Christensen (Kenneth J. Frank of counsel), Goshen, for appellants.

Goldstein, Stoloff Silver (Richard A. Stoloff of counsel), Monticello, for Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating, respondent.

Harris, Beach Wilcox (Andrew W. Gilchrist of counsel), Albany, for J.M.L. Quarries Inc., respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Petitioners challenge a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating granting respondent J.M.L. Quarries Inc. site plan approval to construct an asphalt concrete batch plant on a four-acre portion of its 465-acre quarry site in the Town of Mamakating, Sullivan County. In their brief, petitioners acknowledge that construction of the plant has been completed, a fact confirmed at oral argument. As a consequence, this appeal has been rendered moot in view of petitioners' failure to seek injunctive relief protecting their interests during the pendency of this appeal (see, e.g., Matter of Many v. Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 A.D.2d 643, 644, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 811; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City Engr. of City of Albany, 220 A.D.2d 871, 872, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 807; Matter of Serafin v. Wallace, 117 A.D.2d 926, 927; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of City of Albany, 86 A.D.2d 246, 247-248, affd 59 N.Y.2d 849). There being no basis for applying any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713-714; cf., Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. City of Albany, 141 A.D.2d 949, 951, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 701). Even if we were to address the merits, none of the arguments advanced by petitioners warrants annulment of the Planning Board's determination.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Paden v. Planning Bd., Mamakating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 9, 2000
270 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Paden v. Planning Bd., Mamakating

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARGARET PADEN et al., Appellants v. PLANNING BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

Town of Caroline v. County of Tompkins

At the outset, we note that the record indicates that construction of the building's addition has been…

In the Matter of E.W. Tompkins Co.

Initially, we observe that the bids had been submitted and contracts awarded by the time of Supreme Court's…