Filed: Jun. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2018
Summary: Aarons , J. In 2016, petitioner was charged by simplified traffic informations with driving while intoxicated, among other traffic infractions. Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe, 88 N.Y.2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 U.S. 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. Petitioner subs
Summary: Aarons , J. In 2016, petitioner was charged by simplified traffic informations with driving while intoxicated, among other traffic infractions. Following a Pringle hearing ( see Pringle v Wolfe, 88 N.Y.2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 U.S. 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. Petitioner subse..
More
Aarons, J.
In 2016, petitioner was charged by simplified traffic informations with driving while intoxicated, among other traffic infractions. Following a Pringle hearing (see Pringle v Wolfe, 88 N.Y.2d 426 [1996], cert denied 519 U.S. 1009 [1996]), respondent City Court Judge of the City of Albany, among other things, suspended petitioner's driver's license under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 (2) (e) (7) pending petitioner's prosecution for the underlying charges. Petitioner subsequently commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory action seeking, among other things, annulment of the suspension order. After respondents joined issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition/complaint. Petitioner appeals.
Respondents have advised this Court that the order suspending petitioner's driver's license is no longer in effect based upon petitioner's conviction of driving while intoxicated. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714 [1980]), and we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in this case (see id. at 714-715; compare Matter of Vanderminden v Tarantino, 60 A.D.3d 55, 57-58 [2009], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 708 [2009]).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
