Paden v. Plan. Bd. of Mamakating, 270 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Paden v. Plan. Bd. of Mamakating, 270 A.D.2d 626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Bothar Constr., LLC v. Dominguez (nyappdiv, 2022-01-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bothar Constr., LLC v. Dominguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Lib. , 27 AD3d 1046, 1047-1048 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 704 [2006]; Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating , 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Petitioners, however, are not challenging the construction of the transloading facility but, rather, they are challenging the underlying project for which the facility was constructed (cf. id. at 814; Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]; Matter of Caprari v Town of Colesville, 199 AD2d 705, 706 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Petitioners, however, are not challenging the construction of the transloading facility but, rather, they are challenging the underlying project for which the facility was constructed (cf. id. at 814; Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]; Matter of Caprari v Town of Colesville, 199 AD2d 705, 706 [1993]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drake v. Friedenthal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
After the notice of pendency was canceled, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief to protect his interests while the appeal was pending (see Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Drake v. Friedenthal
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
After the notice of pendency was canceled, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief to protect his interests while the appeal was pending (see Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gabriel v. Prime (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Significantly, “[sjince the ability to transfer clear title is a natural incident of [property] ownership, it follows that when a complaint involving title to or the right to possess and enjoy real property has been dismissed on the merits and there is no outstanding notice of pendency or stay, the property owner has a right to transfer or otherwise dispose of the property unrestricted by the dismissed claim” (Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436, 440 [1990]; see Asher v Gigante, 21 AD3d 916, 917 [2005]; Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]; Matter of Fal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E.W. Tompkins Co. v. Board of Trustees of Clifton Park-Halfmoon Public Library
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Under such circumstances, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, 270 AD2d 626, 626 [2000]; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v Cuomo, 200 AD2d 859, 860 [1994], lv dismissed 83 NY2d 884 [1994]; Matter of Harbour v Riedell, 172 AD2d 920, 921 [1991]), which is an issue the Court can raise on its own motion (see Matter of Flowers v Sullivan, 75 NY2d 850, 850 [1990]; Gaetani v Grippen, 183 AD2d 989, 990 [1992]; see also Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 NY2d 307, 311 [1988], cert…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Town of Caroline v. County of Tompkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
Moreover, under the circumstances herein, there is no basis for applying any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine in this case (see Matter of Paden v Planning Bd. of Town of Mamakating, supra at 626; Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, supra at 644-645).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Margaret Paden
v.
Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 9, 2000.
270 A.D.2d 626
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619
Carpinello.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
—Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered February 16, 1999 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a site plan approval by respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating.

Petitioners challenge a determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating granting respondent J.M.L. Quarries, Inc. site plan approval to construct an asphalt concrete batch plant on a four-acre portion of its 465-acre quarry site in the Town of Mamakating, Sullivan County. In their brief, petitioners acknowledge that construction of the plant has been completed, a fact confirmed at oral argument. As a consequence, this appeal has been rendered moot in view of petitioners’ failure to seek injunctive relief protecting their interests during the pendency of this appeal (see, e.g., Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644, lv denied 89 NY2d 811; Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City Engr. of City of Albany, 220 AD2d 871, 872, lv denied 87 NY2d 807; Matter of Serafín v Wallace, 117 AD2d 926, 927; Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 AD2d 246, 247-248, affd 59 NY2d 849). There being no basis for applying any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, the appeal should be dismissed (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714; cf., Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 141 AD2d 949, 951, lv denied 73 NY2d 701). Even if we were to address the merits, none of the arguments advanced by petitioners warrants annulment of the Planning Board’s determination.

[*627] Cardona, P. J., Peters, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.