Fragoso v. Romano
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Enlarged City School District v. City of Middletown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Enlarged City School District v. City of Middletown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Matter of Kleinknecht v. Brogan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of State of New York (Essex Prop. Mgt., LLC) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Buccellato v. High View Estates Owners, Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Miller v. Lakeland Fire District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Bart-Rich Enterprises, Inc. v. Boyce-Canandaigua, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Aurrichio v. Natrella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Koehler v. Town of Smithtown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Village of Mount Kisco Police Benevolent Ass'n v. Village of Mount Kisco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Neale v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Bonded Concrete, Inc. v. Town of Saugerties (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- United Water New Rochelle, Inc. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In a proceeding for declaratory relief purportedly commenced pursuant to the Election Law, the appeal, as limited by the appellants’ brief, is from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), entered March 5, 1999, as granted the petition.
Ordered that the proceeding is converted to an action for a declaratory judgment, the order to show cause is deemed to be the summons, and the petition is deemed to be the complaint (see, CPLR 103 [c]; Matter of Paladino v Town of Harrison, 225 AD2d 698); and it is further,
Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint is dismissed.
In order to maintain an action for a declaratory judgment, a party must present a concrete, actual controversy for adjudication (see, CPLR 3001; Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354; New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527, 530-531; Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, 126 AD2d 725, 728; Red Robin Stores v Rose, 274 App Div 462, 467-468). When the Supreme Court issued its order and judgment, this case no longer involved a genuine controversy. Instead, the case presented an abstract, hypothetical issue, the determination of which would not have an immediate practical effect and would not necessarily resolve the matter (see, New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, supra, at 531). Thus, this is not a proper case for invoking the jurisdiction of the court to issue a declaratory judgment and the complaint should have been dismissed (see, Matter of Guild of Admin. Officers v County of Suffolk, supra, at 728; Red Robin Stores v Rose, supra, at 468-469). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.