Matter of Generoso v. Adams ( 2024 )

Matter of Generoso v Adams (2024 NY Slip Op 04769)

Matter of Generoso v Adams

2024 NY Slip Op 04769

Decided on October 2, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 2, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2022-01567
(Index No. 528739/21)

[*1]In the Matter of Rocco Generoso, et al., appellants,

v

Eric Adams, etc., et al., respondents.

Patricia Finn, Attorney, P.C., Nanuet, NY, for appellants.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Jamison Davies and Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action, inter alia, for declaratory relief, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.), dated February 10, 2022. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the respondents/defendants' cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and, in effect, CPLR 7804(f) to dismiss the petition/complaint, and, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding/action.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs to the respondents/defendants.

The petitioners/plaintiffs commenced this hybrid proceeding and action in November 2021, challenging an executive order known as the Key to NYC program, which was issued in response to the public health crisis occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Key to NYC program has since expired (see NY City Executive Order [Adams] No. 50, § 2). As the Key to NYC program has expired, the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this appeal, and it is therefore academic (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d 801, 811; Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi , 68 NY2d 583, 592; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714). In addition, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d at 811; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d at 714). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as academic.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MALTESE, DOWLING and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court