You are here: / / PETITIONER, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION...
, ,

PETITIONER, A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH OF THE FINGER LAKES, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A PERMIT ALLOWING THE DUMPING OF TREATED WASTE IN CAYUGA LAKE; ONE OF PETITIONER’S MEMBER’S DRINKING WATER COMES FROM CAYUGA LAKE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a nonprofit organization for the preservation and protection of the health of the Finger Lakes, had standing to contest a permit allowing treated waste to be dumped into Cayuga Lake. Standing is conferred if one of petitioner’s members suffers harm greater than that suffered by the general public. Here a member’s drinking water comes from Cayuga Lake:

… [T]he sole issue on this appeal is whether petitioner sufficiently pleaded that at least one of its members would suffer an injury-in-fact that is different from harm suffered by the public at large, such as to confer petitioner with standing. Petitioner alleged in its petition/complaint that its members would be harmed by the leachate produced by County Line [waste treatment facility], which would be treated by the Ithaca treatment facility and then dumped into Cayuga Lake. According to petitioner, the type of solid waste that County Line would handle would create leachate that contains per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (hereinafter PFAS), a by-product linked to adverse health outcomes and which the Ithaca treatment facility is not capable of completely filtering out of the treated leachate. Because the Ithaca treatment facility dumps treated leachate into Cayuga Lake and is incapable of completely filtering out PFAS, petitioner alleged that if County Line was permitted to operate its facility in accordance with its application, as DEC’s [*3]permit requires, PFAS would enter the lake and cause petitioner’s members harm. In setting forth this harm, petitioner specifically identified a member whose potable drinking water is only filtered through the ground in “beach wells” on Cayuga Lake. As these wells do not filter out PFAS, allowing PFAS to be dumped into the lake would render this member’s water contaminated and unsafe to drink. Matter of Seneca Lake Guardian v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2024 NY Slip Op 03856, Third Dept 7-18-24

Practice Point: Here a nonprofit whose purpose is to preserve and protect the health of the Finger Lakes had standing to contest a permit allowing the dumping of treated waste in Cayuga Lake. One of the member’s drinking water came from Cayuga Lake. Therefore the member suffered an injury greater than that suffered by the general public.

 

You might also like
No “Negligent Supervision” Cause of Action Against School Based on Student Attacking Another Student
Prisoner Must Object at Hearing to Obtain Judicial Review
Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES COULD ONLY BE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO VACATE, ALL THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PURSUANT TO THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, HERE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Precise Dates of Abuse Need Not Be Proven in a Family Court Act Article 10 Proceeding/Exclusion of Respondent from Proceedings During Child’s Testimony Was Proper
THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
ALLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AS A PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC CAN... TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC...