judgment as to the requirement’s constitutionality until November 1, 2010, the day before the election. By that time, there was no possibility of affording him effectual relief, and thus mootness also requires dismissal. See College Standard Magazine v. Student Ass’n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir.2010) (recognizing court’s obligation to address mootness sua sponte because it pertains to jurisdiction). Germalic cannot avoid this conclusion by arguing that he intends to run for other offices in New York, rendering his claim capable of repetition but evading review. Such a vague statement of intent is insufficient to generate a justiciable controversy. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 109, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In any event, Germalic has failed to show
holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury recognizing a drain on the organizations resources as a concrete and demonstrable injury holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim holding that allegations of future injury must be particular and concrete holding that the financial losses that texas would bear due to having to grant drivers licenses constituted a concrete and immediate injury for standing purposes