IN RE: Legal Aid Society (2026)

Argued—November 24, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

Q/

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the disclosure of certain records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), the Queens County District Attorney appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Laurentina S. McKetney Butler, J.), entered January 25, 2024.  The judgment granted the petition to the extent of directing the production of certain unredacted records.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

“ ‘It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal’ ” (Tomasino v. Tomasino, 127 AD3d 1069, 1070, quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713;  see Funderburke v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 49 AD3d 809, 810–811).  “ ‘This principle, which forbids courts to pass on academic, hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract questions, is founded both in constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, and in methodological strictures which inhere in the decisional process of a common-law judiciary’ ” (Tomasino v. Tomasino, 127 AD3d at 1070, quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 713–714).

Here, the petitioner made a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) to the Queens County District Attorney (hereinafter QCDA) for the disclosure of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of witnesses to a homicide investigation from the early 1990s that the petitioner's wrongful conviction unit was investigating.  The QCDA produced the names of the witnesses, without their addresses or phone numbers.  The petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the disclosure of the address and phone number of one witness.  In a judgment entered January 25, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition to the extent of directing the production of certain unredacted records.  During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner learned that the witness is deceased, and the petitioner is, therefore, no longer seeking the information.  Thus, the matter has been rendered academic (see Nautilus Capital, LLC v. Rama Realty Assoc., LLC, 148 AD3d 817, 817–818, citing Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 121 AD3d 778).

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic.

BARROS, J.P., VOUTSINAS, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court