Schulz v. State

• Decision Date: 27 January 1994
• Citation: 200 A.D.2d 936,607 N.Y.S.2d 166
• Parties: In the Matter of Robert L. SCHULZ et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 166

607 N.Y.S.2d 166

200 A.D.2d 936

In the Matter of Robert L. SCHULZ et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Jan. 27, 1994.

Robert L. Schulz, Glens Falls, John Salvatore Jr., Lake George, and Dale R. French, Crown Point, appellants in person.

G. Oliver Koppell, Atty. Gen. (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, of counsel), for respondents.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, CREW, WHITE and WEISS, JJ.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Prior Jr., J.), entered August 21, 1992 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition/complaint as moot.

Petitioners commenced this matter seeking to enjoin respondents from conducting a planned Environmental Sabbath service on April 26, 1992 at the Adirondack Park Visitor Interpretive Center in Paul Smiths, Franklin County, in celebration of Earth Day. Petitioners contend that the service would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Petitioners obtained a temporary restraining order on April 24, 1992 which prohibited respondents from allowing the use of any State property for the purpose of any religious or worship activities, including the use of the Adirondack Park Visitor Interpretive Center for conducting the Environmental Sabbath. The planned service was moved to a local church.

Because the planned event did not take place on State property and respondent Chair of the Adirondack Park Agency declared that the Agency had no present or future plans to organize, promote or sponsor any similar such events, Supreme Court concluded that the underlying controversy had been rendered moot and that a judicial determination relative to the injunctive or declaratory relief sought would constitute the rendering of an advisory opinion.

We agree. " '[I]t is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that our duty to declare the law only arises out of and is limited to determining actual controversies between litigants before us' " (Matter of Schulz v. State of New York, 182 A.D.2d 3, 4-5, 587 N.Y.S.2d 444, appeal dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 924, 589 N.Y.S.2d 310, 602 N.E.2d 1126, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 761, 592 N.Y.S.2d 670, 607 N.E.2d 817, quoting Matter of Herald Co. v. O'Brien, 149 A.D.2d 781, 782, 539 N.Y.S.2d 574). We are not persuaded that this case satisfies the three-prong test for the application of the exception to the doctrine of mootness established in Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431...