Opinion
Argued December 18, 2000
February 5, 2001
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff's members are entitled to the protections of Civil Service Law § 75(2), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated March 23, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendants Village of Mount Kisco and Village Board of the Village of Mount Kisco pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendant Robert Dagostino which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
Bunyan Baumgartner, LLP, Blauvelt, N.Y. (Joseph P. Baumgartner of counsel), for appellant.
Briccetti, Calhoun Lawrence, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Clinton W. Calhoun III and Kerry A. Lawrence of counsel), for respondents Village of Mount Kisco and Village Board of the Village of Mount Kisco.
Loved Gould, White Plains, N.Y. (Jonathan Lovett of counsel), for respondent Robert Dagostino.
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that no justiciable controversy exists as to permit a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties ( see, Fragoso v. Romano, 268 A.D.2d 457; Watson v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 246 A.D.2d 57; Downe v. Rothman, 215 A.D.2d 716). Rather, the plaintiff is seeking an impermissible advisory opinion regarding future events which may or may not occur ( see, Matter of United Water New Rochelle v. City of New York, 275 A.D.2d 464; Cuomo v. Long Is. Light. Co., 71 N.Y.2d 349).
In light of our determination, we do not address the plaintiff's remaining contentions. Specifically, we do not pass upon the merits of the plaintiff's claims, and our decision is without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff or its members to seek administrative and/or judicial review of any future actual controversies relating to the applicability of Civil Service Law § 75(2).