Kalodukas v. Berentsen
| Decision Date | 30 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | 517973. |
| Citation | 121 A.D.3d 1476,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07406,995 N.Y.S.2d 407 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of Glenda KALODUKAS et al., Petitioners, v. Mark BERENTSEN, as Mayor of the Village of Bloomingburg, Respondent. |
121 A.D.3d 1476
995 N.Y.S.2d 407
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 07406
In the Matter of Glenda KALODUKAS et al., Petitioners
v.
Mark BERENTSEN, as Mayor of the Village of Bloomingburg, Respondent.
517973.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Oct. 30, 2014.
Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., New York City (Kurt E. Johnson of counsel), for petitioners.
Nixon Peabody, LLP, Albany (Leah Threatte Bojnowski of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., STEIN, McCARTHY, ROSE and DeVINE, JJ.
Opinion
STEIN, J.
Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from the office of Mayor of the Village of Bloomingburg.
Petitioners, citizen residents of the Village of Bloomingburg in Sullivan County, commenced the instant proceeding in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36, seeking to remove respondent from the office of Mayor and alleged, among other
things, that he violated General Municipal Law article 18. Respondent now moves to dismiss the petition arguing, among other things, that the proceeding is moot, based upon the fact that he was unsuccessful in his bid for reelection and no longer holds the office of Mayor. We agree.
Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 and as relevant here, a village officer may be removed from office for “misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office” upon an application brought in this Court. On March 19, 2014, respondent lost his bid for reelection and no longer holds the public office from which petitioners seek to remove him; thus, the proceeding is undoubtably moot (see Matter of Papke v. Dolan, 116 A.D.3d 779, 779, 982 N.Y.S.2d 915 [2014] ; Matter of Warren v. Bielecki, 92 A.D.3d 1244, 1244, 937...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ayuda Re Funding, LLC v. Town of Liberty
...by the zoning changes. Thus, it is apparent that the original respondents do not have the same interests in the zoning changes as 121 A.D.3d 1476the later-added respondents (see Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 N.Y.3d 452, 457, 805 N.......
-
Smith v. N.Y. State Bd. of Parole, 517846.
...87 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 929 N.Y.S.2d 776 [2011] ; compare People ex rel. Albert v. Schneiderman, 120 A.D.3d 856, 991 N.Y.S.2d 180 [2014] ).995 N.Y.S.2d 407ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without...
-
Smith v. N.Y. State Bd. of Parole
...A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 929 N.Y.S.2d 776 [2011]; compare People ex rel. Albert v. Schneiderman, 120 A.D.3d 856, 991 N.Y.S.2d 180 [2014] ). [995 N.Y.S.2d 407] ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without...