IN RE: JACK BAILEY

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: JACK BAILEY, ET AL., PETITIONERS–PLAINTIFFS, AND ANDREW DEWOLF, PETITIONER- PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. VILLAGE OF LYONS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, RESPONDENT- DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT. ANDREW DEWOLF, PETITIONER–PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT PRO SE.

CA 13–01917

Decided: May 09, 2014

PRESENT:  SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. NESBITT & WILLIAMS, NEWARK (ARTHUR B. WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum:  We dismiss the appeal as moot because, once the dissolution plan at issue was adopted on September 30, 2013, no justiciable controversy remained upon which a declaratory judgment could be made or injunctive relief could be granted.  “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” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713).   This case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see id. at 714–715).

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court