It’s moot

Matter of Metropolitan Steel Indus., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. State of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 02984 (App. Div., 1st, 2010)

Subsequent to the order appealed from, the Dormitory Authority awarded the contract to petitioner, which has since completed the work. Any exception to the mootness doctrine requires "(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). The Dormitory Authority has satisfied the second requirement, and petitioner does not contest the third. However, neither respondent has presented facts showing a likelihood of repetition.

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s