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
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, I.E., THE DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF EMAILS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
REQUEST WAS PROPERLY DEEMED AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE, NOT A USE VARIANCE, AND WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Discovery from Non-Party Explained/Criteria for Discovery of Trade Secrets Explained
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOUR-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH RISER AT THE ENTRANCE TO A SHOWER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (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...