166 A.D.3d 937
N.Y. App. Div.2018Background
- Plaintiffs were elderly, disabled former residents of Prospect Park Residence (PPR), an adult care facility operated by Prospect Park Residence, LLC (the LLC).
- In Feb 2014 the New York State Department of Health (DOH) approved the LLC’s plan to close PPR (First Closure Plan); a preliminary injunction later prevented involuntary transfers, constructive eviction, or diminution of services.
- Plaintiffs sued in a hybrid action (declaratory/injunctive relief and CPLR article 78) challenging DOH’s approval of the First Closure Plan and later challenged a Second Closure Plan in a separate action.
- Plaintiffs settled with the LLC, remaining residents moved out, the facility closed, plaintiffs discontinued the second action and agreed not to challenge the Second Closure Plan.
- DOH moved to dismiss the claims against it as moot; the Supreme Court dismissed state-law claims as moot but declined to dismiss the federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims under the mootness exception. DOH appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against DOH are moot after closure and settlement | Plaintiffs argued the claims are not moot because they raise facial and systemic challenges to DOH closure regulations and thus implicate ongoing public importance | DOH argued subsequent events (settlement, residents leaving, facility closure) rendered any challenge academic with no practical effect | Held: Claims against DOH are moot and should be dismissed as academic; the Supreme Court’s denial was reversed |
| Whether the mootness exception (public importance/likelihood of repetition/evading review) applies | Plaintiffs asserted the exception applies because the regulations affect all closure approvals and raise significant federal issues | DOH argued the dispute is fact-specific, lacks likelihood of repetition, is not novel, and does not typically evade review | Held: Exception does not apply — no likelihood of repetition (fact-specific), not substantial/novel, and issues do not typically evade review |
| Whether plaintiffs’ facial challenge to DOH closure regulations survives despite delay | Plaintiffs contended the regulations violate the integration mandate of ADA/Rehab Act and can be challenged on their face | DOH asserted such a facial challenge is time-barred under CPLR statutes of limitation | Held: The facial challenge to the regulations is time-barred |
| Whether an injunction or other procedural remedy would have sufficed to avoid mootness in similar disputes | Plaintiffs implied systemic relief was necessary and injunctions may be inadequate | DOH noted injunctions maintaining status quo are an effective review mechanism and would have been available | Held: Court found injunctions would be an effective procedure; plaintiffs’ voluntary settlement caused the mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707 (court may not decide moot or abstract questions; outlines mootness exception)
- Matter of Morrison v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Comm. Renewal, 93 N.Y.2d 834 (action becomes academic where determination would have no practical effect)
- Wisholek v. Douglas, 97 N.Y.2d 740 (mootness exception requires all elements; missing elements defeat exception)
- Smalls v. St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 152 A.D.3d 629 (fact-specific disputes undermine likelihood-of-repetition prong)
- Matter of Lunar Pursuit, LLC v. Frame, 149 A.D.3d 1398 (fact-specificity undercuts claim of novelty/substantiality)
- Matter of Citineighbors Coalition v. N.Y.C. Landmarks Preserv. Comm'n, 2 N.Y.3d 727 (issues that typically evade review discussed)
- Heller v. Trustees of Town of E. Hampton, 198 A.D.2d 331 (voluntary actions by plaintiffs can render matters moot)
- Matter of Jablonski v. Steinhaus, 48 A.D.3d 465 (failure of mootness-exception elements defeats review)