Opinion
530143
10-01-2020
In the Matter of James LAMB, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.
Oliver Law Office, Albany (Lewis B. Oliver Jr. of counsel), for appellants. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.
Oliver Law Office, Albany (Lewis B. Oliver Jr. of counsel), for appellants.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Devine, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pritzker, J.
Petitioners applied to and obtained from respondent a Private Service Bureau (hereinafter PSB) license authorizing them to operate a website to assist consumers in the renewal of New York state drivers' licenses or registrations of motor vehicles on line and charge the consumers a fee in addition to the cost of the license or registration charged by respondent. Petitioners submitted an application for renewal of the PSB license in 2018 and, by decision dated August 2, 2018, the application was denied based upon various inconsistencies and deficiencies in the application and the failure to display the required disclaimer on the website in accordance with, among other things, 15 NYCRR 77.7(f). Prior to petitioners' renewal application, respondent levied charges against petitioners, alleging fraud and noncompliance with various regulations in connection with the use of the PSB license. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge, in a decision dated September 14, 2018, revoked petitioners' PSB license. Petitioners submitted an administrative appeal from the revocation of their PSB license and were granted a stay pending that appeal.
Thereafter, petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent's August 2, 2018 denial of the application for renewal of their PSB license. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that petitioners failed to state a cause of action or exhaust their administrative remedies and that the claims are moot and were asserted in a different administrative proceeding. Supreme Court, finding that the denial of the application to renew was superseded by the revocation of the PSB license, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding as moot. Petitioners appeal.
We affirm. "It is well settled that a court's jurisdiction extends only to live controversies" ( Matter of Ballard v. New York Safety Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d 1073, 1075, 5 N.Y.S.3d 542 [2015] ; see Matter of Truscott v. City of Albany Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 152 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 55 N.Y.S.3d 919 [2017] ). "In general[, a matter] will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination ... and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment" ( Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ; see Matter of Canarelli v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 177 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 112 N.Y.S.3d 331 [2019] ; Matter of Ballard v. New York Safety Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d at 1075, 5 N.Y.S.3d 542 ).
The subsequent administrative determination revoking petitioners' PSB license superseded the determination denying their application for review, effectively eliminating any potential to renew the license (see Matter of Bland v. Gellman, Brydges & Schroff, 127 A.D.3d 1436, 1437, 7 N.Y.S.3d 657 [2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 948, 17 N.Y.S.3d 66, 38 N.E.3d 809 [2015] ). Because a determination regarding the renewal application would have no immediate consequences nor effect the rights of the parties, Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the petition as moot (see Matter of Ballard v. New York Safety Track LLC, 126 A.D.3d at 1075, 5 N.Y.S.3d 542 ; see e. g. Matter of Canarelli v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 177 A.D.3d at 1059–1060, 112 N.Y.S.3d 331 ; Matter of Jablonski v. Carter, 162 A.D.3d 1364, 1365, 75 N.Y.S.3d 438 [2018] ; Matter of Truscott v. City of Albany Bd. of Zoning, 152 A.D.3d at 1039, 55 N.Y.S.3d 919 ). We are unpersuaded by petitioners' contention that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).
Notably, the decision revoking petitioners' PSB license was subsequently affirmed by the Department of Motor Vehicles Administrative Appeals Board, by decision filed February 25, 2020.
--------
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Devine and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.