You are here: / / THE STATE HAS NOT PREEMPTED A MUNICIPALITY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE...
, ,

THE STATE HAS NOT PREEMPTED A MUNICIPALITY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE THE PROCESSING OF WASTE; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAD ISSUED A PERMIT ALLOWING THE PROCESSING OF 500 TONS OF WASTE PER DAY, THE VILLAGE’S ACTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION REDUCING THE ALLOWED AMOUNT OF WASTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village’s request for a preliminary injunction limiting the amount of waste that could be processed by defendant recycling company was properly denied, but the action seeking a permanent injunction should not have been dismissed. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) had issued a temporary emergency permit allowing the defendant to process 1100 tons of waste per day and the defendant applied to make 1100 tons per day permanent. The village sought an injunction imposing the 2008 limit of 370 tons per day. While the preliminary injunction was pending, the DEC issued a permit imposing a daily waste limit of 500 tons per day, which obviated the need for the preliminary injunction. But, because the state has not preempted the ability of a municipality to regulate the amount of waste, the permanent injunction action should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in determining, in effect, that it did not have the authority to issue declaratory or injunctive relief limiting the maximum amount of waste that could be processed at the facility in an amount less than that permitted by the DEC. Indeed, “the State has not preempted local legislation of issues related to municipal solid waste management” … . Thus, the DEC’s issuance of the 2016 renewal permit did not per se preclude the court from considering the merits of the causes of action asserted in the Village’s complaint. * * *

… [A]s a practical matter, the DEC’s issuance of the [500 ton per day] permit largely obviated the need for an order preliminarily enjoining the defendants … . … However, the Supreme Court had an insufficient legal or factual basis, at this preliminary stage, to deny the Village’s request for permanent injunctive relief precluding [defendant] from exceeding the 2008 limits. Indeed, if the Village is ultimately able to establish, at trial, that the defendants breached the terms of a prior agreement entered into between the Village and [defendant], or that the facility’s operation in excess of the 2008 limits constitutes a nuisance, or that the facility is operating in violation of the Village’s zoning code, then the Village may well be entitled to permanent injunctive relief as an appropriate remedy … . Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst v One World Recycling, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05037, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

You might also like
Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH.
THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT VIOLATE THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD BY MAKING A U-TURN IN RESPONSE TO A CALL FOR ASSISTANCE; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.
EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING TO INVALIDATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).

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

A PARTY’S ADMISSION IN AN UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT IS NO LONGER ADMISSIBLE... ORDER PROHIBITING DEFENDANT HUSBAND FROM DISPARAGING PLAINTIFF WIFE TO THIRD...