You are here: / / PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A...

PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

The Third Department, in a detailed decision, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a pesticide manufacturer, had not been afforded a hearing on a clean-up plan (CMA 9) which the respondent Department of Environmental Conservation sought to implement. Therefore the Department could not find that the pesticide company had “refused” to obey the implementation order and could not proceed with the clean-up itself:

… [W]e conclude that the procedural framework set forth in ECL 27-1313 applies … . Where, as here, respondent has determined that a site poses a “significant threat to the environment,” the agency may order an owner “(i) to develop an inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, subject to the approval of [respondent], at such site, and (ii) to implement such program within reasonable time limits specified in the order” (ECL 27-1313 [3] [a]). Prior to issuing such an order, the owner is entitled to “notice and the opportunity for a hearing” (ECL 27-1313 [4]). Where a responsible party “has failed” to comply with a remedial order, either because it is unable or unwilling to do so, respondent may implement the remedial program itself (ECL 27-1313 [5] [a], [b], [c]).

Here, under the consent order, petitioner developed the CMA report. The focus in this proceeding turns to remedy selection and implementation. Under this statutory framework, petitioner was entitled to both notice (which was provided through the statement of basis process) and an opportunity for a hearing prior to the issuance of an order directing petitioner to implement CMA 9. As it turns out, petitioner was not accorded an opportunity for a hearing to assert its challenge to CMA 9 and no implementation order was issued. Absent such an order, we must agree with petitioner that respondent’s determination that it was authorized to proceed with the remedial work based on petitioner’s “refusal” to perform the work was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of FMC Corp. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2016 NY Slip Op 06929, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/HAZARDOUS WASTE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)/PESTICIDE MANUFATURE (PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION)

You might also like
Children’s Hearsay Alleging Abuse by Father Was Not Corroborated; Change in Custody Should Not Have Been Granted
OFFICE OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OMRDD) WAS IMMUNE FROM A NEGLIGENCE SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE OF A DISABLED RESIDENT WHILE IN THE CARE OF A COMPANY CERTIFIED BY THE OMRDD.
Evidence Did Not “Utterly Refute” Plaintiff’s Allegation He Had No Notice Individual Defendant Was Acting as an Agent for a Disclosed Corporate Principal—Motion to Dismiss Action Against Individual Defendant Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Should Not Have Been Granted
THE CITY FIREFIGHTERS WHO, AS ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES, WERE REQUIRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO WORK DURING THE PANDEMIC, SOUGHT TIME-OFF OR MONETARY COMPENSATION EQUIVALENT TO THE TIME-OFF AFFORDED THE NONESSENTIAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE SENT HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC PURSUANT TO THE SAME THE EXECUTIVE ORDER; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED ARBITRATION OF THE ISSUE WAS PRECLUDED BY PUBLIC POLICY (THIRD DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ON ICE ON THE RENTAL PROPERTY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Order Not Appealable, Did Not Affect Substantial Right.
Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal
Jury Instruction Reversed Burden of Proof—New Trial Ordered

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S... FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.