Opinion
July 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the provision which denied the motion to dismiss the proceeding as academic, and by substituting therefor a provision granting that motion and dismissing the proceeding as academic, and (2) deleting the third and fourth paragraphs thereof; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The instant proceeding, which was commenced in 1989, sought to compel the appellant Jack Pfeffer, the alleged copresident of the Association of Jewish Court Attaches, Inc. (hereinafter the Association), as well as other officers of the Association, to conduct a special meeting of the Association for the purposes of nominating and electing a new slate of officers and directors.
During the course of the litigation, Pfeffer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the relief sought was "now moot". Specifically Pfeffer submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, quoting Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067-1068), including affidavits from himself, as newly-elected President, the newly-elected Vice President, and the newly-elected Recording Secretary of the Association, which indicated that a meeting of the Association was held on July 6, 1990, at which time a new slate of officers and directors was elected. It appears that no papers were served in opposition to this motion, and the order appealed from dated February 22, 1991, indicates that no opposition papers were considered by the Supreme Court in opposition to this motion. Thus, we find that the Supreme Court erred in holding that Pfeffer "failed to establish * * * that a meeting has already been held", and, accordingly, dismiss the proceeding as academic.
We have examined the remaining issue raised by Pfeffer, i.e., that the Supreme Court, Kings County, lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and find it to be without merit (see, CPLR 503 [c]; Not-for-Profit Corporation Law §§ 618, 102 [a] [11]; Bailey v. New York Racing Assn., 90 A.D.2d 710; Papadakis v. Command Bus Co., 91 A.D.2d 657). Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.