You are here: / / THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATED AREA WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS TO BE...
,

THE FACT THAT THE CONTAMINATED AREA WHERE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS TO BE LOCATED HAD BEEN REMEDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) WAS NOT ENOUGH TO ENSURE SAFETY WHEN THE SOIL IS DISTURBED FOR CONSTRUCTION; THE SEQRA REVIEW DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE EFFECTS OF DISTURBING THE SOIL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Plattsburgh Common Council, the lead agency responsible for review of a construction project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), did not take the requisite hard look at the potential danger associated with disturbing the contaminated soil which had been cleaned up and declared remediated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC):

… Supreme Court correctly determined that, although the soil contamination was addressed, the ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) and Planning Board failed to take a hard look at this issue … . More specifically, the failure in providing mitigation measures for this environmental concern did not comply with the mandates of SEQRA … . Preliminarily, the Common Council, and thereafter the Planning Board and ZBA, properly relied on DEC correspondence in determining that the project site in its current form did not present adverse environmental impacts … . Here, however, it was inappropriate to determine that there would be no adverse environmental impacts when it was known that the contemplated site plan would necessarily disturb the contaminated soil … . * * * The fact that the brownfield remediation was successful at the time does not discharge the involved agency’s duty to take a hard look relative to the project … . Indeed, the citizens who may be impacted have the right to insist that the construction be done in an environmentally safe manner in accordance with SEQRA.  Matter of Boise v City of Plattsburgh, 2023 NY Slip Op 04338, Third Dept 8-17-23

Practice Point: Here the construction area had been contaminated and was successfully remediated by the DEC. But the SEQRA review required a hard look at the effects of disturbing the soil n the remediated area during construction. The review could not simply rely on the remediation-conclusions of the DEC.

 

You might also like
CONTRACTOR OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF OVER AND ABOVE THE OBLIGATIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.
Cy Pres Doctrine Properly Applied to Distribute Gifts to the Hospital Which Had Taken Over the Duties of the Named Hospital
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSES OF CLAIMANT’S HEARING LOSS DID NOT SUPPORT THE MEDICAL EXPERTS’ CONCLUSIONS THAT THE LOSS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OPERATION OF HEAVY MACHINERY (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE JULY 2015 MENTAL HYGIENE ARTICLE 10 TRIAL; COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT REQUESTING A FRYE HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OSPD DIAGNOSIS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A FRYE HEARING BASED UPON WHAT WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF THE 2015 TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS MOOT BECAUSE APPROPRIATE HOUSING HAD BEEN FOUND WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED THE APPEAL UNDER THE EXCEPTION-TO-THE-MOOTNESS-DOCTRINE AND REITERATED THAT WHEN A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER HAS COMPLETED HIS MAXIMUM PRISON TIME AND SUITABLE HOUSING IS NOT AVAILABLE, HE MUST BE TRANSFERRED TO A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (RTF) (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND SELLER OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE AFTER CONTACT WITH A HEATER, THE HEATER DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE DISMISSAL UNDER JOINT LIABILITY PRINCIPLES AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING CLAIMANT’S INJURY WAS WORK-RELATED (THIRD 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

DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISED A BATSON OBJECTION TO THE STRIKING OF FIVE JURORS; THE... THE PETITIONS FOR A PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM ON THE BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE...