Lenape Resources, Inc. v. Town of Avon, 121 A.D.3d 1591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Lenape Resources, Inc. v. Town of Avon, 121 A.D.3d 1591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Lost Lake Holdings LLC v. Town of Forestburgh (nyappdiv, 2024-03-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Matter of Lost Lake Holdings LLC v. Town of Forestburgh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
Conservation , 180 AD2d 852, 854 [3d Dept 1992]; see Lenape Resources, Inc. v Town of Avon , 121 AD3d 1591, 1591 [4th Dept 2014]).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Page v. Fields
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
As such, this appeal does not raise "significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues" that would qualify as an exception to the mootness doctrine ( Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 715 ; see Lenape Resources, Inc. v Town of Avon , 121 AD3d 1591, 1591 ; People ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lenape Resources, Inc.
v.
Town of Avon
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 3, 2014.
121 A.D.3d 1591
Centra, Dejoseph, Fahey, Whalen.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Robert B. Wiggins, A.J.), entered March 20, 2013 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted the converted motion of respondents-defendants Town of Avon and Town of Avon Town Board for summary judgment and dismissed the petition/complaint as against them.

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

Memorandum: In this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding/ declaratory judgment action, petitioner-plaintiff (petitioner) challenged Town of Avon Local Law No. T-A-5-2012, insofar as it imposed a one-year moratorium on certain natural gas and petroleum extraction, exploration, and production activities within the Town of Avon. Inasmuch as the moratorium has expired pursuant to the terms of the local law, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed (see Matter of New York Inst. of Tech. v Colombo, 138 AD2d 489, 489-490 [1988]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the issues raised on appeal fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). The substantive issues raised by petitioner were decided by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Wallach v Town of Dryden (23 NY3d 728 [2014]), and thus this appeal does not raise “significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues,” that would qualify as exceptions to the mootness doctrine (Hearst Corp., 50 NY2d at 715; see People ex rel. Lynch v Poole, 57 AD3d 1490, 1491 [2008]).

Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.