Case Name: In the Matter of Susan Hito Shapiro, as Successor Executor of the Estate of Sonya Shapiro, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-11-08
Citations: 155 A.D.3d 741
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Susan Hito Shapiro, as Successor Executor of the Estate of Sonya Shapiro, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P, Austin, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 155
Pages: 741–741

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Susan Hito Shapiro, as Successor Executor of the Estate of Sonya Shapiro, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
[63 NYS3d 248]

Opinion:
In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review three determinations of the Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, all dated December 27, 2011, which granted the applications of the respondent Scenic Development, LLC, for subdivision and site plan approval of the subject property, and action for injunctive relief, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated September 10, 2012, as dismissed the first through third and fifth through eleventh causes of action.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
This appeal has been rendered academic by the determinations of the respondent Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo dated March 22, 2013, granting the applications of the respondent Scenic Development, LLC, for final subdivision and site plan approval of the subject property. Since the issues raised herein have been addressed on the appeal in Matter of Shapiro v Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo (155 AD3d 741 [2017] [decided herewith]), the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 507 [2010]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see also Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A., 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015]; Matter of Aloya v Planning Bd. of Town of Stony Point, 93 NY2d 334 [1999]).
Leventhal, J.P, Austin, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.