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.
IN RE: MATTHEW GRAF AND BETH GRAF, PETITIONERS–APPELLANTS, v. TOWN OF LIVONIA, FINGER LAKES TIMBER COMPANY, INC., AND TOWN OF LIVONIA JOINT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul a determination of respondent Town of Livonia Joint Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA determined, inter alia, that the sawmill project proposed by respondent Finger Lakes Timber Company, Inc. (FLTC) constituted a permissible “[a]gricultural or farming operation” within the meaning of the Town of Livonia Zoning Code. Petitioners appeal from a judgment denying their petition and dismissing the proceeding.
We agree with respondents that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Petitioners did not seek injunctive relief or make any other attempts to preserve the status quo during the pendency of their administrative appeal, the CPLR article 78 proceeding, or this appeal, and the sawmill project is now complete (see Matter of Gerster Sales & Serv., Inc. v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 67 AD3d 1386, 1387, lv denied 14 NY3d 703; Durham v. Village of Potsdam, 16 AD3d 937, 938, lv denied 5 NY3d 702; Matter of G.Z.T. Indus. v Planning Bd. of Town of Fallsburg, 245 A.D.2d 741, 742; cf. Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 AD3d 1312, 1313, appeal dismissed 7 NY3d 803). Petitioners nonetheless assert that the appeal is not moot because the controversy does not concern the propriety of the building, but rather the use of FLTC's land to operate a sawmill. We reject that contention. FLTC sought permission to erect the building at issue for the express purpose of housing a portable sawmill and other milling equipment. FLTC spent an estimated $100,000 on the building, which is now complete and being used for its intended purpose (see generally Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 N.Y.2d 165, 173–174). Further, the ZBA granted FLTC's application for a conditional use permit authorizing its use of a portable sawmill on the property in 2006, well before the determination at issue.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–02066
Decided: August 08, 2014
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)