From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guziec v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 8, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from a judgment which affirmed the determination of the City of Dunkirk Zoning Board of Appeals granting a seasonal variance to respondents Runfola and Corsi to operate a hot dog stand on Runfola's property. Since the variance at issue expired by its own terms on November 1, 1989, this appeal is rendered moot (see, Matter of Burns Pharmacy v Conley, 146 A.D.2d 842, 843). Moreover, we conclude that the issue presented is not of such general interest or public importance that exception to the mootness doctrine is warranted (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715; cf., Matter of Friends of Pine Bush v Planning Bd., 86 A.D.2d 246, 248, affd 59 N.Y.2d 849).


Summaries of

Guziec v. Woods

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1991
171 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Guziec v. Woods

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL E. GUZIEC et al., Appellants, v. MARK WOODS et al., Constituting…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 1082 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Tickner v. Town of Perinton

Thus, adjudication of the merits will not "result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties"…

Matter of Parisella v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals

Petitioners concede that their appeal, insofar as it relates to the issuance of the use variance, is moot.…