Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown

Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown 2006 NY Slip Op 08499 [34 AD3d 1306] November 17, 2006 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 17, 2007

In the Matter of Pyramid Company of Watertown et al., Respondents, v Planning Board of Town of Watertown et al., Respondents, and COR Route 3 Company, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent. Bed, Bath and Beyond, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

—[*1]Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered February 1, 2006. The order held respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC and Stark Family Partnership, LP in contempt of an order of the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents COR Route 3 Company, LLC (COR) and Stark Family Partnership, LP (Stark) and the two intervenors herein appeal from an order that held COR and Stark in contempt of this Court's order in which we reversed the judgment of Supreme Court and granted the amended petition in part by annulling the determination of respondent Planning [*2]Board of the Town of Watertown (Matter of Pyramid Co. of Watertown v Planning Bd. of Town of Watertown, 24 AD3d 1312 [2005], lv dismissed 7 NY3d 803 [2006]). Because the contempt has been purged pursuant to the provisions of the contempt order and petitioners have waived the fine imposed in the contempt order, the appellants are no longer aggrieved and the issues raised on these appeals therefore are moot (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). This case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see id. at 714-715). Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.