From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 2010
78 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 3534.

November 4, 2010.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered September 30, 2009, which granted plaintiffs motion to reargue and renew an order, same court and Justice, entered August 19, 2009, and, inter alia, upon reargument, denied defendants' motion to vacate so much of an order entered July 1, 2009 as awarded plaintiff prejudgment interest and, upon renewal, vacated so much of the August 19th order as referred to a special referee the issue of whether the court should vacate the judgment entered July 6, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Lance A. Landers, New York, for appellants.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney Carpenter, LLP, New York (I. Michael Bayda of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


The satisfaction of the underlying judgment leaves the parties with no further liability exposure or other rights to be affected on this appeal ( see Wisholek v Douglas, 97 NY2d 740). Hence, this appeal is moot inasmuch as it does not involve a controversy or issue that is likely to recur, typically evades review and raises a substantial and novel question ( see e.g. Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714).

[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32239(U).]


Summaries of

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 4, 2010
78 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Zuckerman v. Goldstein

Case Details

Full title:MYRON ZUCKERMAN, Respondent, v. SYDELL GOLDSTEIN et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Nov 4, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7812
909 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Big Four LLC v. Bond Street Lofts Condominium

We, however, affirm the dismissal of the complaint's first cause of action for a declaratory judgment as to…