Court Opinion

ID: 9390491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 17:06:18.561767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.965591
License: Public Domain

Matter of Brigham (New York City Loft Bd.) (2023 NY Slip Op 02172)

Matter of Brigham (New York City Loft Bd.)

2023 NY Slip Op 02172

Decided on April 27, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

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.

Decided and Entered: April 27, 2023

Before: Webber, J.P., Moulton, Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, JJ. 

Index No. 100205/19 Appeal No. 129 Case No. 2022-04181 

[*1]In the Matter of Thomas Brigham, Petitioner-Appellant,
New York City Loft Board et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Thomas Brigham, appellant pro se.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for City respondents.
Norris McLaughlin P.A., New York (Gerard Proefriedt of counsel), for B. Jaffe Real Estate Co. LP, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered March 31, 2022, which denied petitioner's motion to renew his CPLR article 78 petition seeking to, inter alia, annul a temporary certificate of occupancy issued by respondent New York City Department of Buildings (DOB), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion to renew, as the newly discovered facts proffered by petitioner would not have changed the prior determination that the expiration of the temporary certificate of occupancy rendered his request to annul it moot (see CPLR 2221[e][2]).
Petitioner's challenges to the actions taken by respondent New York City Loft Board related to its rejection of his application for a finding of unreasonable interference and respondents' notice to DOB approving the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy are not properly before this Court on this appeal. Petitioner's failure to prosecute the branch of the proceeding that was previously transferred to this Court (see CPLR 7804[g]) forecloses him from now raising these arguments (see Matter of E.B. Stimpson Co. v Jorling, 161 AD2d 593, 594 [2d Dept 1990]; see also Tregerman v Auerbach, 111 AD3d 503, 504 [1st Dept 2011]; Matter of Neroni v Granis, 121 AD3d 1312, 1314 [3d Dept 2014], appeal dismissed 25 NY3d 957 [2015]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 27, 2023