Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Marylin G. Diamond, J.], entered November 29, 2007), challenging respondent's determination, dated March 19, 2007, terminating petitioner's section 8 rent subsidy, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.
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.
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
After the proceeding was transferred to this Court, we were advised, by respondent's brief, that respondent modified its determination terminating petitioner's rent subsidy so as to reinstate the subsidy, retroactive to May 1, 2007, upon certain conditions. Petitioner's reply brief does not contend that the conditions are unduly burdensome; in any event, the deadlines for meeting the conditions passed before the date of oral argument without petitioner having sought a stay (cf. Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn., 2 NY3d 727 ). Therefore, even if this Court were to vacate the original determination, our decision would have no practical effect.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...