# Meegan v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · June 11, 2010 · 74 A.D.3d 1824

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5804048

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Robert P. Meegan, Jr., Individually and as President of Buffalo Police Benevolent Association v. Byron W. Brown, as Mayor of City of Buffalo
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** June 11, 2010
- **Citations:** 74 A.D.3d 1824; 902 N.Y.S.2d 479
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5804048

## Opinion text

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered November 25, 2008. The order, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application to enjoin respondents from implementing a certain program pending the decision of an arbitrator or December 18, 2008, whichever occurred first.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondents appeal from an order entered November 25, 2008 that, inter alia, granted petitioners’ application to enjoin respondents from implementing a field training officer program within the police department of respondent City of Buffalo until such time as the arbitrator rendered a decision with respect to the grievances filed by petitioners or December 18, 2008, whichever occurred first. In appeal No. 2, respondents appeal from an order entered January 28, 2009 that, inter alia, continued the preliminary *1825 injunction granted by the November 25, 2008 order until such time as the arbitrator rendered a decision with respect to the grievances or December 18, 2009, whichever occurred first.
We dismiss appeal No. 1 inasmuch as the order appealed from has expired by its express terms, and thus the appeal is moot. We also dismiss appeal No. 2 as moot for the same reason. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5804048. Public record. Not legal advice.