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: JOHN F. v.
anAMBURGH, Appellant, v. EDWARD D. KINOWSKI et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Calendar Date: March 25, 2011
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nolan Jr., J.), entered September 28, 2010 in Saratoga County, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition.
A public hearing was scheduled, rescheduled and then postponed indefinitely to consider proposed amendments to a local law enacted by the Town of Stillwater, Saratoga County. Pursuant to the Town's rules governing access to its records (see Public Officers Law § 86[3]; § 87[1][b] ), petitioner orally requested a copy of the proposed amendments from respondent Sue Cunningham, the Town Clerk. Cunningham refused to provide a copy, asserting that the proposed amendments had not been finalized. Petitioner did not administratively appeal Cunningham's denial, instead commencing the present CPLR article 78 proceeding. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that petitioner failed to submit the requisite written request under the Freedom of Information Law (see Public Officers Law art 6) and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Supreme Court, among other things, granted respondents' motion and dismissed the petition on exhaustion grounds. Petitioner now appeals.
We affirm, albeit on a different basis than that relied upon by Supreme Court. Petitioner was entitled to a written denial advising him of his right to administratively appeal (see Public Officers Law § 89[3][a]; 21 NYCRR 1401.5[e][1]; 1401.7[b] ). Nonetheless, as respondents provided a copy of the draft proposed amendments to petitioner as part of their motion to dismiss, this proceeding was rendered moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Covington v. Cirincione, 307 A.D.2d 554, 554 [2003]; Matter of Almodovar v. Altschuller, 232 A.D.2d 700 [1996] ).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
ENTER:
Robert D. Mayberger
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 510850
Decided: May 12, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)