| Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp. v Montague-Lee Ltd.Partnership |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06828 [110 AD3d 934] |
| October 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp.,Appellant, v Montague-Lee Limited Partnership,Respondent. |
—[*1] Harrison & Rothbard, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y. (Alan T. Rothbard of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for specific performance of an alleged oral promise to renew a lease oncertain property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered January 4, 2012, as denied itsmotion to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from terminating its tenancy of the subjectpremises. Motion by the defendant, inter alia, for the Court to take judicial notice ofcertain court orders and to dismiss the appeal as academic. By decision and order onmotion of this Court dated December 6, 2012, those branches of the motion which werefor the Court to take judicial notice of certain court orders and to dismiss the appeal wereheld in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal fordetermination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in oppositionthereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branches of the motion which are for the Court to take judicialnotice of certain court orders and to dismiss the appeal are granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.
It is undisputed that, during the pendency of the appeal, a judgment was enteredawarding the defendant possession of the subject premises in a holdover proceeding inthe Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, and that the parties entered intoa stipulation whereby the plaintiff vacated the subject premises on April 30, 2012. Underthese circumstances, it is no longer possible to enjoin the defendant from terminating theplaintiff's tenancy. Moreover, the defendant has since sold the subject premises to thenonparty New York City School Construction Authority as a site on which to construct apublic school and, therefore, no longer has an interest in the property. Any determinationby this Court will not affect the rights of the parties, and the matter does not otherwisewarrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. vClyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of Cisse v Graham, 87 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2011]).[*2]
Accordingly, the appeal from the order, whichdenied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, has been rendered academic(see Frey v Rose, 51 AD3d859 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.[Prior Case History: 33 Misc 3d 1237(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 52265(U).]