DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.
Initially, since the appellants joined in the motion of the developer to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing, the appellants are aggrieved by the order denying the motion and may prosecute this appeal ( see Ciraolo v. Melville Ct. Assocs., 221 A.D.2d 582; Voorhees v. Babcock Wilcox Corp., 150 A.D.2d 677). However, the appeal must nevertheless be dismissed as academic.
The site plan approval granted to the developer for the 10-lot subdivision has expired by its terms, and the developer has reportedly submitted a new site plan application for a 20-lot subdivision. Any controversy surrounding the granting of the initial approval thus has been rendered academic ( see Matter of New York Inst. of Technology v. Colombo, 138 A.D.2d 489; Teplitsky v. Department of Environmental Conservation of State of N.Y., 98 A.D.2d 745). The appellants ask us to nevertheless decide the standing issue under the exception to the rule against deciding academic questions ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707) but we decline to do so since the appellants have not demonstrated that this issue will likely arise again. Rather, if the developer's new subdivision application is granted, and the petitioners find the approval of the new plan to be objectionable and commence a new proceeding, then the issue of the petitioners' standing can be litigated.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.