Matter of Podolsky v Bloomberg
2007 NY Slip Op 01491 [37 AD3d 354]
February 22, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 11, 2007


In the Matter of Ronald Podolsky, Appellant,
v
Michael Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[*1] Ronald Podolsky, New York, appellant pro se. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered August 2, 2006, which, on respondents' cross motion, dismissed this CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner argues that the eventual provision of the documents he requested does not moot this proceeding because he is challenging respondent Art Commission's decision to issue the challenged certificates without hearing his comments on the prehearing review of the documents in question. Assuming the petition can be read as alleging such a claim, petitioner did not offer any nonspeculative, nonhearsay factual pleadings to support his allegation that respondents had formulated a policy that no prehearing access to any documents would be allowed to anyone, and failed to plead facts suggesting that the challenged determinations were irrational. Therefore, the far-reaching remedy petitioner seeks is not available on this petition. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.