The Honor able Richa rd M. B erma

n, District J udg e of the United States District Court * for the Souther

n District of Ne w York, sitting by desig nation. 1 10

- 05 89

- cv M i ts kov s ki e t al

. v . Buf

f al o & For t Er i e Pub. Br i dge Aut h. UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

### SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

R U LI NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO A S UM M ARY OR D E R F I L E D ON OR A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E R M I T T E D A N D I S G OV E R N E D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E OF A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RUL E 3 2 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D OC U M E N T F I L E D WI T H T HI S C OU R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR AN E L E CT RONI C DAT ABAS E ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A P ART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER M U ST SERV E A C O PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, 3 on the 31 day

of January , two thousand and e leven. st 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 PI ERRE N. L EVAL , 8 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 9 Circuit Judges , 1 0 11 RI CHARD M. BERMAN, 1 2 District Judge

. * 13

______________________________________________________ 1 4 15 MARK B. MI TSKOVSKI , EL I Z AB ETH A. MARTI NA, 1 6 1 7 Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts , 1 8 19 THOMAS J . PI SA, 2 0 Plain tif f , 2 1 22 -v.- No. 10-0589-c v 2 3 24 BU FF AL O AND F ORT ERI E PUBL I C BRI DGE AU THORI TY, 2 5 2 6 Defendant- Appellee

.Plaintiff Thomas J . Pisa is not a party to this appeal. 1 2 1 2 R OB E R T E. K NOER , The Knoe r Group PL L C, Buff alo, New 3 York, for Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts

. 4 5 M AR I L YN A. H O CH FI ELD , Kavinoky Cook L L P, Buff

alo, 6 New Y ork, for Defendant-Appe llee

. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, it i s h er eby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and D ECREED 9 that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt be A F F I RME D I N PA RT a

nd DI SMI SSED I

N PA RT A S 10 MOOT. 11 Plaintiffs-Appellants Mar k B. Mitskovski and Elizabeth A. Martina a ppeal from a De cision 12 and Or der of

the United States District Court for the Western Dis trict of New York (Schr oeder , M.J. ) 1 3 g r an t i n g s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tt o D e f

e n d an t

- Ap p e l l e e B u f

f a l o an d F o rt E r i e P u

b l i c B r i d g e A u t h o r i t y 14 (“ B ri dg e Autho ri ty” ) a nd de nyingAp pe lla

nts ’ c ro ss- mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ap pe lla

nts 1 15 soug ht a dec laration: 1) that t h e B ridg e Authority is a state ag ency

and public body

subject to the 16 New Y ork State Environmenta l Quality Review Ac t (“SEQRA”) , N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. L aw § 8- 17 0101 et s eq., the New York S tate Free dom of I nformation L aw ( “F OI L ”), N .Y. Pub. Off. L aw § 84 18 e t se q. , a

nd the Ne w Y or

k St a te Op e n M eet in gs L aw, N.Y

. P ub . O ff . L a w § 10 0 e t se q. ; 2) that it 19 vio late d SE QR

A b y se g me nti ngits B or de r I

nf ra str uc tu re I mpro ve me nt P ro

je c t ( “ B I I P” ) f

ro m it s 20 Ca

pa c ity Expa ns ion Pr oje c t ( “ CEP ” ), and

by fa ili ngto r e vie w a de qu a te ly the e nv ir on me nta l im

pa c t 21 of t he B I I P; and 3) that it violated a cour t order issued in a

prior state c ourt dec ision. Se e City of 22 Buffalo v. N. Y

. State Dep’ t of E n vtl . Conserv. &Buffalo Olmstead Parks Conservancy v. Buffalo 2 3 & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth. , 184 Misc.2d 243, 255-56 (N.Y . Sup. Ct . 2000). 24 Both pa

rties moved for

summary judgme nt. On J anuar

y 22, 2010, the district court g rante d3 1 the B ridg e Authority ’s m o t i on for summary judgme nt and denied the Appellants’ c ross-motion, 2 concluding t h at t h e aboveme ntioned statutes wer e inapplica ble to the interna l operations of the 3 B ridge Auth or ity , a nd tha t th e B ri dg e Autho ri ty

did no t vi olate the state c ourt or de r. Ap pe lla

nts 4 timely

filed their notice of appeal on Fe bruar y 18, 2010. We assume the parties’ fa miliarity with the 5 underlying f

acts a nd proce dural history

. 6 Be fore adjudicatingthe merits of a n appea l, we must determine whether we have juri s d ic ti o n. 7 Se e Mu ha mm ad

v . Ci ty of N .Y. De p’ t of Cor r ., 12 6 F .3 d 1 19 , 1 22 (2 d Ci r. 19 97 ). We r e vie w i ssu e s 8 of justiciability , including mootness, de novo. S e e A d a m s v . Za rn el , 6 1 9 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 9 2010). We also re view de novo a district cour t’ s o rd er gra n t i ng summary judgme nt . Molinari v. 1 0 Bl oo mb e rg , 5 64 F .3 d 58 7, 59 5 (2 d Cir

. 20 09 ). I n re vie wi ng su c h an or de r, the a pp e llate c ourt

mus t 11 “ c on str

u[e ] the e vid e nc e in t

he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to t he no n- movin g p art

y and dr aw[ ] a ll 12 rea sonable infe renc es in its favor.” Palmieri v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 445 F.3d 179, 187 (2d Cir. 2006). 13 Re vie w i s lim ite d to d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y c on c lud e d th a t a s to e a c h c la im 14 there was no g enuine issue of materia l fac t, and whether the substantive law wa s corr ectly applied 15 for identific ation of mater ial fac ts. H. L. H ay de n Co . v . S

ie me ns Me dic al S

y s. , 879 F.2d 1005, 1011- 16 12 (2d Cir. 1989). 17 Appellants here seek a dec laratory judgme nt that the Br idge Authority is subject to SEQRA, 18 FOI L , and the Open M eeting s L aw, and that it violated the court’s or der issued in City of B uff alo

. 19 The Dec laratory J udg ment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) , permits “any court of the United States” t o 20 decla

re rig hts a nd other re lations in an “ac tual controve rsy .” Id. F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f a d e c l ar a t o r

y 21 a c tio n, an “ a c tua l c on tr ov e rs y ” on ly e xists wh e re “ the re is a

su bs tanti a l c on tr ov e rs y , b e tw e e n p art ie s 22 having adver s e lega l interests, of suff icient immediacy

and re ality

to warr ant the issuance of a4 1 d e c la

r a to r y ju d g me n t.” Ma r

yland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co. , 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941). 2 Im p o rt an t l y, “ a m e r e d e m an d f o r d e c l ar a t o r

y r e l i e f d o e s n o tb y i t s e l f

e s t a b l i s ha c a s e o r c o n t r o v e r s y 3 nece ssary

to confe r subject matter

jurisdiction.” S. Jack

son & Son, Inc. v . Coffee, Sugar & Cocoa 4 Exc h. Inc. , 24 F.3d 427, 431 ( 2d Cir. 1994). Where “ ‘the re medy soug ht is a mere de clar ation of law 5 without impl ications for pr actica l enforc ement upon the pa rties, the ca se is properly dismiss ed.’” 6 Id. (q u o t i n g Browning Debenture Holde rs’ Comm. v. Dasa Corp. , 524 F.2d 811, 817 (2d C ir. 1975)). 7 Under

the doctrine of mootness, a c ourt no long er has subject matter jurisdiction when “the 8 parties lack a leg ally cog nizable interest in the outcome” of the c ase. Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of State 9 U n i v . o f N

. Y. , 4 2 F. 3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 0 (2 d C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Cou nty of L .A . v . D av is , 440 U.S. 625, 631 10 (1979)) (interna l quotation marks omitted). “This occ urs ‘whe n interim relief or eve nts have 11 e ra dic a te d th e e ff e c ts o f t he de fe nd ant’ s a c t or

omi ssi on , an d th e re is n o r e a so na ble e xpe c tatio n th a t 12 the alleg ed violation will recur .’” Zarnel , 6 1 9 F. 3 d a t 1 6 2 (q u o t i n g Irish Lesbian & Gay Org. v

. 1 3 Giuliani , 143 F.3d 638, 647 ( 2d Cir. 1998)). 14 A. App lic abi lit y o f Ne w Yo r k Laws 15 1. Dec laration t hat the Bridge Authority Violated SEQRA 16 App ellan ts se e k a de c laratio n that the B ri dg e Autho ri ty is su bje c t to SEQ RA , and that it 1 7 v i o l a t e d

S E Q RA w i t h r e s p e c tt o t h e B II P

. In r e v i e w i n g a S E Q RA d e t e r

m i n a t i o n , a c o u rt“ i s s o l e l y 18 conce rned w ith the proce dural a nd substantive mandates of SEQ R A, not with the ultimate 19 environmenta l conseque nces of the proposed

action.” Ha r E nters. v. Town of Brookhaven , 74 20 N. Y. 2d

52 4, 53 0 (N .Y . 198 9) (e mph a sis a dd e d)

. Con se qu e ntl y , a SEQR A c ha lle ng e is o ft e n mo ot 21 wher e the projec t at issue has alre ady been c ompleted. See, e .g. , Many v. Vill. of Sharon Springs Bd. 2 2 of Trust ees , 234 A.D.2d 643, 644 (N .Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1996). In deter mining whe ther a5 1 SEQ RA c ha lle ng e is m oo t, “ we mus t c on sid e r h owfa r t he wo rk ha s progres sed tow ard s 2 completion.” Citi neighbors Coalit ion of Histori c Carnegie H i l l v. N.Y . City Landmarks Pres. 3 Comm’n , 2 N. Y. 3d 72 7, 72 9 (N .Y . 200 4)

. Se ve ra l othe r fa c tor s ar e “ sig nif ic ant i n e va luatin g c la ims 4 of mootness. Chief amongthem has bee n a challeng er’ s failure to seek pre liminary injunctive relief 5 o r o t h erwi s e p re s erv e th e st at u s qu o t o p re v en tco n s t ru ct i o nfr o mco m m en ci n g o r c o n t i nu i n g d u ri n g 6 the pende ncy

of the litigation.” Dreikause n v. Zoning B d. of A ppeals of the City of L ong Beac h , 98 7 N. Y. 2d

16 5, 17 3 (N. Y. 20 02 ). Othe r f a c tor s in c lud e “ wh e the r w or k w a s und ert aken wi tho ut 8 a ut ho ri ty or in b a d f

a ith , a nd wh e the r s ub sta

nti a lly c omp le te d w or

k is ‘r e a dil y

un do ne , w ith ou t 9 undue har dship.’” Citi ne igh bo rs , 2 N. Y. 3 d at 7 2 9 (q u o t i n g Dreikause n , 98 N.Y.2d at 173)

. 10 Her e, Appellants “did not try to enjoin construction duringthis li tigation’s pendenc y .” Id. ; 1 1 see also Dreikausen , 98 N.Y.2d at 174; Many , 234 A.D.2d at 644. Work on the B I I P beg an in 2004 12 and wa s completed in 2008, a period duringwhich the Appe llants could have sa feguarde d their 13 challeng e by

promptly reque sting preliminary injunctive relief

. Se e Citi ne igh bo rs , 2 N. Y. 3d a t 73 0; 1 4 Many , 234 A.D.2d at 645. F urther, the re is no indication that the B ridg e Authority undertook th e 1 5 p r o

j e c ti nb a d

f a i t h , o r t h a tt h e s i g n i f

i c an t r e n o v a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e B II P w o u l d

b e “ r e a d i l y 16 un do ne , w ith out un du e ha rd sh ip. ” As a re su lt, Ap pe lla nts ’ SEQ RA c ha lle ng e mus t be dis mis se d a s 17 moot. 18 2. De c larati on tha t th e Br idge Au tho rit yis S ub je c t to FO

IL 19 Appellants also see k a dec laration that the Br idge Authority is subject t o FOI L . Appellants, 20 ho we ve r, have no t a lle g e d a ha rm to t he m r e su lti ngfr om t

he B ri dg e Autho ri ty ’s c on te nti on s th a t it 21 is no t su bj ect to F OI L . U nd e r N e w Y or k la w, a pla int if f’ s r e me dy

fo r a F OI Lvio latio n is a

c ourt 22 order

requiringdisclosure of the documents re quested. See, e .g. , W . Harlem Bus. Group v . Empire6 1 S ta te Dev . Corp. , 1 3 N .Y .3 d 8 82 , 8 83 (N .Y . 2 00 9) ; Ma rk owi tz v . S e rio , 11 N.Y.3d 43, 47 (N .Y. 2 2 0 0 8 )

. In t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt , A p p e l l an t s d i d n o td e m an d t h e p r o d u c t i o no f an y d o c u m e n t s a l l e g e d l y 3 withheld in violation of FOI L

. They instead aske d mere ly

for a decla ration of a n abstrac t proposition 4 of law. Th ey no w asse rt

that th e de c lara

tio n “ wi ll h ave a

re a l and e ff e c tiv e imp a c t,” and

thu s 5 “ e ff

e c tiv ely de te rm ine an a c tua l c on tr ov e rs y .” Ap pe lla nts Re ply 22 . B ut s o f

ar a s th e c omp la int 6 dis c los e s, a

de c laratio n th a t th e B ri dg e Autho ri ty is s ub je c t to F OI Lwo uld

have no pr a c tic a l e ff

e c t 7 on the litigation. The claim there fore does not prese nt “an a ctual contr oversy .” 8 3. De c larati on tha t th e Br idge Au tho rit yis S ub je c t to theOp e n M

e e tin gs Law 9 Appellants ar g ue that the B ridg e Author i t y should be requir ed to comply with the Open 10 Meeting s L aw. Even assuming that the Open Meeting s L aw applies to the Br idge Authorit y , 1 1 A p p e l l an t s f

a i l t o s t a t e a v a l i d c a

u s e o f a c t i o n . N e w Y o r

k ’ s O p e n M e e t i n g s L aw r e qu i r e s t h a t“ e v e r y 12 me e tin g of

a pu bli c bo dy

. . . b e op e n to the g e ne ra l pu bli c .” N. Y. Pub . O ff

. L aw § 10 3( a ); see also 1 3 Ma tth es v . To wn o f E . F ish k ill , 785 F.2d 43, 45 ( 2d Cir. 1986). A plaintiff’s a lleg ations that the 14 Open Me eting s L aw ha s been violate d, howeve r, cannot be “merely conclusory and spec ulative in 15 nature .” Residents for a More Be autiful Port W ash., Inc. v. Town of N. Hempstead , 153 A.D.2d 727, 16 72 9 (N. Y. Ap p. Di v. 2d De p’ t 19 89 ); see also E. End Prop. Co. v. Town of Brookhave n , 2007 NY 17 Slip Op 51032U at *10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct . 2007) (r equiring“more than mere conclusory alleg ations” to 18 sustain an Open Me eting s L aw c lai m ). On appeal, Appellants a lleg e no violation of the Ope n 19 Meeting s L aw a

nd seek only a declaration that it applies t o the B ridg e Authority . Appellants’ sole 20 alleg ation in its complaint below was that “[u] pon information and belief, the P u b l i c B ri dg e 21 Authority

did not hold any

open mee t i n g s reg ardingthe Curre nt Project.” Compl. ¶ 213. Such a 22 statement is insufficient to sustain Appellants’ c laim. See Town of N. Hempstead , 153 A.D.2d at 7297 1 (finding an alleg atio n t h at p ri v ate mee tings “ must have take n place . . . in violation of the Open 2 Me e tin g s L aw” fa ile d to s tate a va lid c a us e of a c tio n “ c on c e rn ingvio latio ns of the Op e n M e e tin g s 3 L aw” ). I t must t here fore be dismissed. 4 B. Com plian ce Wit h the City of Buf fa lo Court Order 5 Ap pe lla

nts fi na lly argue that the B ri dg e Autho ri ty vio late d the or de r iss ue d by the state c ourt 6 in City

of B uff alo , which “pe rm an en t l y en j oined” the B ridg e Authority “fr om goingforwa

rd with 7 bridge construction [proposed in the CEP] until it has complied with SEQRA.” 184 Misc.2d at 255- 8 56 (empha sis added). The state cour t al s o remitted the matter to the Br idge Authority “for 9 rec onsideration of the cumulative impact of the proposed b ridg e construc tion and the re lated 10 plaza/connec ted roa dway s project, an d co nsideration of a lternatives, a nd for pr epar ation of an 1 1 e n v ir o n me n ta l im p a c t s tate me n t c o n c e r

n in g th e same .” Id. a t 25 6. Ap pe lla nts c on te nd

that th is 1 2 o rd er

co n s t i tu t eda p erm an en ti n j u n ct i o n a g ai n s tt h e B ri d ge A u t h o ri t y fr o mt ak i n g any ph y sic a l 13 action re lated to infra structure improvements to the plaza. 14 Appellant’s c ontention is without merit. The plain text of the order only enjoined the B ridg e 15 Autho ri ty

fr om c on str

uc tin g a se c on d br idg e un til it c omp le te d a n e nv ir on me nta l im

pa c t st a te me nt 1 6 co n s i d er i n g t h e i mp ac to f b o t h t h e C E P b ri d ge c o n s t ru ct i o np ro j ec t an d a r el at edp l az a/ co n n ec t i n g 1 7 ro ad wa y s p ro

j ec t

. I td i d

n o ten j o i nt h e B ri d ge A u t h o ri t y fr o mt ak i n g any phy sical action related to 1 8 i n f

r a s t r u c tu r e i mp r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p l a z a . A s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt c o r r e c t l y n o t e d , t h e B r i d g e A u t h o r i t y 19 is curr ently revie wing the i mpact of both projec ts and has not commenc ed construc tion of a sec ond 20 bridg e. We there fore conclude that the district c ourt did not err in grantingsummary judgme nt with 21 reg ard to this claim.8 1 C. Co nc lusi on 2 We h ave c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ re ma ini ng argume nts and fi nd the m to be moo t or wi tho ut 3 mer it

. F o r

th e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , th e ju d g me n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt i s A F F I RM E D I N PA RT an d 4 DI SMI SSED I

N PART AS MOOT. 5 6 F OR TH E CO UR T: 7 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 8