You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Suffolk County Legislature v. Mullen

Citations: 211 A.D.2d 735; 622 N.Y.S.2d 469; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 443

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 23, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Proceeding under CPLR article 78, the court addressed a request to prohibit the enforcement of an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had appointed a Special District Attorney. The court dismissed the proceeding without costs, noting that the original order from October 25, 1994, appointing Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon as Special District Attorney, was subsequently vacated by Justice Mullen on November 15, 1994. Consequently, the petition to prohibit enforcement of the vacated order was deemed academic. Additionally, any further relief sought by the petitioner is superseded by a later CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the petitioner. The decision was made with the concurrence of Judges Mangano, Sullivan, Balletta, Rosenblatt, and Miller.

Legal Issues Addressed

Dismissal of Proceedings Without Costs

Application: The court dismissed the proceeding without imposing costs on either party.

Reasoning: The court dismissed the proceeding without costs, noting that the original order from October 25, 1994, appointing Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon as Special District Attorney, was subsequently vacated by Justice Mullen on November 15, 1994.

Effect of Subsequent Proceedings

Application: The court noted that any further relief sought by the petitioner is addressed by a subsequent proceeding initiated under CPLR article 78.

Reasoning: Additionally, any further relief sought by the petitioner is superseded by a later CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the petitioner.

Mootness in Judicial Proceedings

Application: The court determined that the petition to prohibit the enforcement of the order was moot because the order had already been vacated.

Reasoning: Consequently, the petition to prohibit enforcement of the vacated order was deemed academic.