Opinion
CA 01-01617
February 1, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.), entered February 12, 2001, which denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint.
BLITMAN KING LLP, SYRACUSE (DONALD D. OLIVER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
BOND, SCHOENECK KING, LLP, SYRACUSE (THOMAS J. GROOMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND JAMES A. McGOWAN, COMMISSIONER.
LACY, KATZEN, RYEN MITTLEMAN, LLP, ROCHESTER (RONALD A. MITTLEMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT H R PROJECT ASSOCIATES, INC.
SUGARMAN, WALLACE, MANHEIM SCHOENWALD, LLP, SYRACUSE (SHERRY R. BRUCE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS CONTEGRA SERVICES, LTD., N/K/A DIVERSIFIED CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, INC., AND GRAYSTONE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
SARA C. KAY, NEW YORK, FOR ALAN G. HEVESI, COMPTROLLER OF CITY OF NEW YORK, AMICUS CURIAE.
HISCOCK BARCLAY, LLP, SYRACUSE (ALAN R. PETERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR CENTRAL NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE, AND ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, NEW YORK (BRISCOE R. SMITH OF COUNSEL), FOR THE NEW YORK CHARTER SCHOOL AND THE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION-PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, AMICI CURIAE.
SETH KUPFERBERG, NEW YORK, FOR ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AMICUS CURIAE.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, HAYES, AND HURLBUTT, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum:
Plaintiffs commenced this action in July 2000 seeking an injunction prohibiting the receipt or opening of bids for renovation work on the Central New York Charter School for Math and Science (Charter School project) based upon the alleged failure of defendant developer, defendant general contractor and defendant construction manager to comply with the public bidding requirements of General Municipal Law § 103 and the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Law § 220. The record discloses, however, that all of the contracts for work on the Charter School project had been awarded prior to the commencement of the action, the work was scheduled to be completed on September 15, 2000, and the parties agree that the Charter School project is now complete. As a result, this appeal from the order denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint is moot ( see, Matter of LaCorte Elec. Constr. Maintenance v. County of Schoharie, 190 A.D.2d 899, 899-900, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 709; Matter of United Pioneer Corp. v. Office of Gen. Servs. of State of N. Y., 155 A.D.2d 849, 850; Matter of General Bldg. Contrs. v. Egan, 106 A.D.2d 688, 690, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 601). A determination by this Court whether the Charter School project is subject to public bidding or prevailing wage requirements would be "inappropriate for it would no longer serve any but academic purposes" ( Matter of General Bldg. Contrs. v. Egan, supra, at 690; see, Bissell v. Pyramid Cos., 125 A.D.2d 876, 877, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 69 N.Y.2d 1015).