Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of C. Thomas GILBERT and Karen Gilbert, Petitioners, v. Ralph ENDRES, Jeanne Gage, Bruce Hawkins, James Schwartzer, Nadina Stevens, Betty Windstein and Johanna Zonnevylle, Constituting the Planning Board of Town of South Bristol, Respondents.
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination granting their neighbor a special use permit to hold an annual fall harvest festival on her property. The matter previously was transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), and we vacated the transfer order and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings (Matter of Gilbert v. Endres, 13 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 787 N.Y.S.2d 554). It appears on the record before us that the determination to grant the special use permit “was not ‘made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law’ ” (Matter of Butler v. Town of Throop, 303 A.D.2d 976, 976, 756 N.Y.S.2d 678), and thus the court erred in transferring the matter to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) based on a substantial evidence issue (see Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v. Planning Bd. of Town of N. Elba, 238 A.D.2d 93, 96, 668 N.Y.S.2d 774). In any event, the special use permit has since expired by its own terms, rendering the proceeding moot, and we conclude that this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Lee, 27 A.D.3d 1136, 1136-1137, 810 N.Y.S.2d 715).
It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 17, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)