Timothy C. St ance u, of the United States Court of International Trade , sitti ngby * designation. 08
- 43 27
- cv A d am s v. Standard Fed eral B ank UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

R UL I NGS BY SUM M ARY ORD E R DO NO T HAVE PR E CE DENTI AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A SUM M ARY ORD E R F I L E D AF T E R J A NUA R Y 1, 2007, I S P E R M I T T E D A ND I S G OV E R NE D B Y F E D E R A L R U L E O F A PPE L L ATE P RO CED U RE 3 2 .1 A ND T HI S C OURT ’ S L O C A L R U L E 32. 1. 1. W H EN CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORD E R I N A D OCU M E NT F I L E D W I T H THI S C OU RT , A PARTY M U ST CI TE EI THER TH E F E D E R A L A PPEN D I X OF AN EL ECTRO N I C D ATABASE ( WI T H T HE NOT A T I ON “ SU M M ARY O RD ER ”). A P A R T Y C I T I NG A S UMM A R Y OR DE R M US T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON AN Y PARTY N O T REPRE SENTED B Y CO U N SEL .

At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 1 day

of April, two thousand ten. st PRES ENT: P E T E R

W
. H A LL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges , TI MOTHY C. STANCEU, * Judge.

_______________________________________________ Ka re n M ari e Ad ams, fo rm e rl y kn own a s K are n M ari e Da vis , Plain tif f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. 08-4327-c v Standard F eder al B ank, as suc cessor by Merg er to AB N AMRO Mortg ag e Gr oup, its successors in interest, ag ents & /or assigns, Ag ent for Sec reta ry of Ho us ing& Ur

ba n D e ve lop me nt, De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle es,2

Kathry n Wil son Smi th, Kenneth L . Smith, Donald E. L orema

n, Sr., Individually

and d/b/a Ke eseville L aunder ette and C & D Enterprises, Caroly n L orema n, Individually

and d/b/a Ke eseville L aunder ette and C & D Enterprises, Mark J. Whit ney , Individually

and as Ma

yor of the V illage of Ke eseville, Willi am Seave r, Individually and as employee of

Villag e of K eese ville Court, The Vi lla g e of

Ke e se vil le , Ro be rt

B . D avis , Wil liam O’Connor, Individually

and as e mploy ee of

the Villag e of K eese ville, Ba y view L oan Servic ing, L L C, De

fe nd an ts.

_______________________________________ F OR PLAI NT I F F -A PPELLAN T: K AR EN M ARI E A DA MS , pro s e , A u Sa ble F or ks , New Y ork. F OR DE F EN DA

NT S- APP ELL EE S: D AVI D P. C A SE , Fe in, Such & Cra ne, L .L .P., Rochester , New Y ork. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of Ne w York ( Kahn, J .).
UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D , AD JU DGED , AND DE CREED that th e a

pp e a l is DISMISSE D a s mo ot. Appellant Ka

ren Ma rie Ada ms appea ls from an orde r of the district c ourt deny ing he r
mo ti o nf o r r e c o n s id e r ati o n

o f it s o r d e r d e nyin gh e r

mo ti o nf o r a p r e li mi n ar

y in ju n c ti o n . We assume the pa

rties’ fa miliarity with the fac ts, procee dings be low, and spec ification of issues on
a pp e a l. This Court has jurisdiction to review the de nial of a pr eliminary injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). See Ma strov inc e nz o v . Ci ty of N e w York, 4 3 5 F
. 3 d

7 8 , 8 8 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. In addition, “a notice of appe al from de nial of a motion to rec onsider, filed w ithin ten day s of the3

order or judgment soug ht to be considere d, suffice s to bring up f or re view the unde rlying or der or judgme nt, at least whe re the motion renews a rguments previously

made.” “R” Best Produce, In c ., v . D iSa

pio , 5 40 F .3 d 1 15 , 1 21 (2 d Ci r. 20 08 ); se eals o id . at 122 (notingthat duringthe pendenc y of the e vents at issue the time period for movingfor r econside ration excluded
wee kends and holiday s). The district c ourt issued its order de nying A dams’s re quest for a pr e lim ina ry inj un c tio n o n Jan

ua ry 18 , 2 00 8, and

Ad ams f ile d h e r m oti on

fo r r e c on sid e ra

tio n s ix business day s later. We ther efor e re view both the initial order de nying A dams’s motion for a preliminary

injunction and the denial of her motion for r econside ration of that or der. Adams sought a pre liminary injunction to prevent Standard F eder al B ank fr om “taking any further action to evict or

otherwise dispossess Plaintiff of the pr emises at 20 Thompson Road, Kee seville, NewYork.” Adams conc edes that she has bee n evicted f rom these pr emises. Acc ording ly , this appeal is moot with respec t to both the denial of Adams’s motion for a preliminary

injunction and the denial of her motion for r econside ration. See W hite River Am us e me nt Pub , I

nc . v . To wn o

f H ar tfo rd, 481 F.3d 163, 167 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (“[a] case is moot wh e n th e iss ue s p re se nte d a re no lon g e r ‘ liv e ’ o r t

he pa rt ie s la c k a

le g a lly c ogniza ble int e re st i n th e o ut co m e” ) ( qu o t i n g City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000)) ( internal quotation marks omitted). To the e x tent Adams see ks to avoid this result by pointing to other issues she attempted to ra ise in her motion we note that those issues remain pe nding be fore the district court
and that no a pp e a la ble fi na l or de r r e g ard ingthe se iss ue s h a s b e e n o rd e re d. Th e a pp e a l is DI SM ISSED a s mo ot. F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk