## Facts

- A city planning board held public hearings on June 22 and July 5, 1978 regarding two proposed subdivision plats (“Dunes” and “Pinehurst”) in an environmentally sensitive area.
- On July 17, 1978, the board approved both subdivision plats.
- The approvals were implemented in a manner that avoided requiring the developers to install improvements or post a performance bond; the city financed subdivision improvements and later recouped costs through special assessments on benefited parcels.
- After approval, subdivision improvements were constructed at city expense and, in part, were specially assessed against benefited properties.
- During litigation, development progressed: approximately 30% of approved residential structures were built and substantial excavation for further construction occurred.
- Petitioners sought to halt construction early but did not obtain an extension of the automatic stay and took no later action to secure stay relief while the appeal remained pending.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenge to the planning board’s subdivision approvals presented a live controversy or was moot because construction and public improvements had substantially proceeded without an effective stay.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment dismissing the Article 78 petition.
- The court held the dispute was moot because substantial improvements and construction had been completed and effective relief was no longer practicable.
- The court declined to reach the merits of petitioners’ statutory and environmental objections to the approvals.

## Legal Principles

- A court will dismiss a land-use challenge as moot when subsequent events render the dispute academic and no effective relief can be granted.
- In challenges to development approvals, failure to obtain and maintain a stay while construction proceeds can result in mootness once substantial work and expenditures have occurred.
- When a case is moot, courts generally do not decide underlying statutory-compliance or environmental-review claims tied to the challenged approval.

## Conclusion

The court treated the approval challenge as nonjusticiable because the subdivision improvements and a significant portion of construction proceeded during the litigation without an effective stay, leaving no practical remedy and requiring dismissal on mootness grounds.


Friends of Pine Bush v. Plan. Bd. of City of Albany, 86 A.D.2d 246, 450 N.Y.S.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1982)