In my column, "CPLR 5518, 5519: Distinction, Stays and Mootness in Construction Cases, Part I" and "Part II," Jan. 14, 2021 and Jan. 15, 2021, respectively, I noted Weeks Woodlands Ass'n v. Dormitory Auth. of State, 95 A.D.3d 747 (1st Dep't 2012), aff'd 20 N.Y.3d 919 (2012), wherein the First Department enunciated the general rule in mootness analysis that "a petitioner seeking to halt a construction project must move for injunctive relief at each stage of the proceeding:"

"the primary factor in the mootness analysis is the challenger's failure to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation"; "generally, a petitioner seeking to halt a construction project must move for injunctive relief at each stage of the proceeding."