Markowits v. Friedman

144 A.D.3d 998

42 N.Y.S.3d 52

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07933

Sara MARKOWITS, et al., appellants,

v.Barry FRIEDMAN, et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 23, 2016.

Lynn, Gartner, Dunne & Covello, LLP, Mineola, NY (Joseph Covello and Kenneth L. Gartner of counsel), for appellants.

Morrison Cohen LLP, New York, NY (Y. David Scharf and Kristin T. Roy of counsel), for respondents.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, BETSY BARROS, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated March 12, 2015, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Barry Friedman and Rachel Friedman which was, in effect, to direct the plaintiff Alexander Markowits to notify the arbitrator, by March 19, 2015, of dates available to appear for an arbitration during the weeks of April 16, 2015, or April 24, 2015.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, and so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Barry Friedman and Rachel Friedman which was, in effect, to direct the plaintiff Alexander Markowits to notify the arbitrator, by March 19, 2015, of dates available to appear for an arbitration during the weeks of April 16, 2015, or April 24, 2015, is vacated.

In an order dated June 16, 2014, the Supreme Court granted, in part, a motion of various defendants to compel arbitration (see Markowits v. Friedman, 144 A.D.3d 993, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––– – [Appellate Division Docket No. 2014–08193; decided herewith] ). The order appealed from here, in relevant part, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Barry Friedman and Rachel Friedman (hereinafter together the Friedmans) which was, in effect, to direct the plaintiff Alexander Markowits to notify the arbitrator, by March 19, 2015, of dates available to appear for an arbitration during the weeks of April 16, 2015, or April 24, 2015. Since the order expired by its own terms during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of Maurice M. [Norton], 138 A.D.3d 1119, 28 N.Y.S.3d 893; Matter of Congregation Ahavas Moische, Inc. v. Katzoff, 134 A.D.3d 933, 20 N.Y.S.3d 894 ).

“While it is the general policy of New York courts to simply dismiss an appeal which has been rendered academic, vacatur of an order or judgment on appeal may be an appropriate exercise of discretion where necessary ‘in order to prevent a judgment which is unreviewable for mootness from spawning any legal consequences or precedent’ ” (Mannino v. Wells Fargo Home Mtge., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 638, 639, 990 N.Y.S.2d 854, quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 718, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; see

Matter of Adirondack Moose...