Opinion
11-08-2017
In the Matter of Susan Hito SHAPIRO, as successor executor of the estate of Sonya Shapiro, et al., appellants, v. TOWN OF RAMAPO, et al., respondents-respondents, et al., respondents.
Susan H. Shapiro, named herein as Susan Hito Shapiro, Nanuet, NY, appellant pro se and for appellant Benjamin Ostrer. Michael L. Klein, Town Attorney, Suffern, NY (Janice Gittelman and Michael Specht of counsel), for respondents-respondents Town of Ramapo and Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo. Terry Rice, Suffern, NY, for respondent-respondent Scenic Development, LLC.
Susan H. Shapiro, named herein as Susan Hito Shapiro, Nanuet, NY, appellant pro se and for appellant Benjamin Ostrer.
Michael L. Klein, Town Attorney, Suffern, NY (Janice Gittelman and Michael Specht of counsel), for respondents-respondents Town of Ramapo and Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo.
Terry Rice, Suffern, NY, for respondent-respondent Scenic Development, LLC.
In two proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination and an amended determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo dated January 6, 2011, and March 8, 2011, respectively, which granted the application of the respondent Scenic Development, LLC, for preliminary subdivision approval of the subject property, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), entered July 25, 2012, which denied the petitions and dismissed the proceedings.
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 Shapiro v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2014–07003; 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 Stoney 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.