Warren v. Bielecki, 92 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Warren v. Bielecki, 92 A.D.3d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Strollo v. Evans, 246 A.D.3d 1428 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1244 Determining mootness and grounds for removal from office4 citing cases3 listed here
  • Matter of Strollo v. Evans, 246 A.D.3d 1428 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2026).published
    Inasmuch as respondent no longer holds public office, the proceeding is moot ( see Matter of Kalodukas v Berentsen , 121 AD3d 1476, 1477 [3d Dept 2014]; Matter of Warren v Bielecki , 92 AD3d 1244, 1244 [4th Dept 2012]; Matter of Copp v Lan…
  • Kalodukas v. Berentsen, 121 A.D.3d 1476 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    On March 19, 2014, respondent lost his bid for reelection and no longer holds the public office from which petitioners seek to remove him; thus, the proceeding is undoubtably moot (see Matter of Papke v Dolan, 116 AD3d 779, 779 [2014]; Mat…
  • MatterofKalodukasvBerentsen, No. 517973 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't Oct. 30, 2014).published
    On March 19, 2014, respondent lost his bid for reelection and no longer holds the public office from which petitioners seek to remove him; thus, the proceeding is undoubtably moot (see Matter of Papke v Dolan, 116 AD3d 779, 779 [2014]; Mat…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Daniel T. Warren
v.
Robert J. Bielecki, Comptroller, Town of West Seneca
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 10, 2012.
Published opinion
92 A.D.3d 1244
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to remove respondents from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36. Inasmuch as respondents no longer hold public office, the proceeding is moot (see Matter of Copp v Lankford, 283 AD2d 980 [2001]; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784 [1998]; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]). In any event, we note that, based on the findings of fact made by the Referee appointed by this Court, there would be insufficient grounds upon which to remove either respondent from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, which requires evidence of “self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” (Matter of Jones v Filkins, 238 AD2d 954 [1997] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765 [1995]). Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni and Lindley, JJ.