You are here: / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION...

Search Results

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE.

The Second Department reversed the dismissal of a petition because a question of fact had been raised about the adequacy of notice of a tax lien. The Second Department also reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment portion of this hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action because no motion had been made for summary determination of declaratory judgment request:

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek to recover damages and declaratory relief, on the other hand. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court should not have summarily disposed of the cause of action that sought declaratory relief, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on that cause of action … . Matter of East W. Bank v L & L Assoc. Holding Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07956, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/HYBRID ACTIONS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)/ARTICLE 78 (HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE)

/ ,

ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

The First Department determined a new liability trial was necessary in a personal injury case because of erroneous evidentiary rulings. The trial court allowed into evidence internal rules (apparently dealing with the operation of a subway train) which imposed a higher standard of care than that required by the common law:

The court erred in admitting into evidence portions of defendant’s internal rules, which imposed a higher standard of care than required by common law … . Moreover, the prejudice to defendant was heightened by plaintiff’s expert’s reading of those internal rules to the jury.

The court also erred in allowing plaintiff’s counsel to question defendant’s train operator about his discussions with counsel. Sebhat v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07872, 1st Dept 11-22-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/STANDARD OF CARE (ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)

/ ,

FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent and a concurrence, reversing Supreme Court, determined money-laundering transactions using a correspondent bank account in a New York branch of a Swiss bank provided jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign parties. The individual plaintiff is a Saudi resident and co-owner of plaintiff corporation which builds oil rigs. Plaintiffs alleged three of its employees received bribes and kickbacks which were then deposited in defendant-bank (Pictet, based in Geneva) using a correspondent bank account in New York State:

We conclude that defendants’ use of the correspondent bank accounts was purposeful and that plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims arise from these transactions. … [T]he requirements of CPLR 302 (a)(1) are satisfied where the quantity and quality of contacts establish a “course of dealing” with New York, and the transaction and claim are not “merely coincidental” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants actively used a correspondent bank to further a scheme that caused harm. … [T]he defendants’ use of the New York account to transfer money provided the employees with the “laundered” profits from the bribery and kickback scheme. Also, … defendants used the correspondent account in New York “to move the necessary” money … . * * *

Here, the money laundering could not proceed without the use of the correspondent bank account, and, as plaintiffs argue, their claims require proof that the bribes and kickbacks were in fact paid. Rushaid v Pictet & Cie, 2016 NY Slip Op 07834, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL)/JURISDICTION (FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL)/BANKING LAW (FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL)

/

SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND CAN BE COMPELLED BY COURT ORDER TO CONSENT, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO A THIRD-PARTY SETTLEMENT.

The Court of Appeals, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Workers’ Compensation carrier could seek a court order compelling the Special Disability Fund to consent to a settlement with a third-party.  Here the carrier agreed to the settlement and the carrier then sought retroactive consent from the Special Disability Fund, which refused:

Here, as required by section 29, the injured employee sought and obtained Ace Fire’s approval prior to entering the settlement of the third-party action. Ace Fire, however, did not seek the Special Disability Fund’s written approval prior to settlement. When Ace Fire sought the Special Disability Fund’s retroactive consent, the Fund refused, asserting that Ace Fire had forfeited its right to reimbursement. Ace Fire then commenced this proceeding asking Supreme Court to compel the Special Disability Fund’s consent nunc pro tunc under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5).

We have repeatedly recognized “that a statute . . . must be construed as a whole and that its various sections must be considered together and with reference to each other” … . The language in section 29 (1) establishing what entities may be deemed lienors is essentially identical to the language in section 29 (5) referring to the entities whose consent to settlement is required and, if not obtained, can be compelled upon application to the court — i.e., the “person, association, corporation, or insurance carrier liable to pay” compensation benefits. Here, the parties do not dispute that the consent of the Special Disability Fund to settlement of the employee’s third party action was required. Thus, assuming, for purposes of this appeal, that the Special Disability Fund is a lienor whose consent to settlement is required under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1), we conclude that the carrier may seek to obtain the Fund’s consent from Supreme Court nunc pro tunc under section 29 (5). There is no principled basis for concluding that the Special Disability Fund’s consent is required as a lienor under one portion of the statute, but that the failure to obtain it cannot be cured, as it can for other lienors, under the same statute. Ace Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v Special Funds Conservation Comm., 2016 NY Slip Op 07833, CtApp 11-22-16

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND CAN BE COMPELLED BY COURT ORDER TO CONSENT, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO A THIRD-PARTY SETTLEMENT)/SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND CAN BE COMPELLED BY COURT ORDER TO CONSENT, NUNC PRO TUNC, TO A THIRD-PARTY SETTLEMENT)

/

IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY’S DEVIATION FROM A FORMULA DESCRIBED IN ITS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-judge dissent, determined that defendant county was required to use the formula outlined in its request for proposals (RFP) when evaluating bids for county contracts (here involving use of private bus services). The county included one formula in the RFP and used a different formula in awarding the contract:

Here, the County deviated from the criteria specified in its RFP when it evaluated the proposals received pursuant to its request. The emphatic language used in the RFP's paradigm of a percentage to points ratio — stating that if a 10% cost difference exists between the lowest offeror and the next lowest, then the latter “will have 2 points deducted from the maximum score of 20” — makes clear that the “example” was meant to explain that a percentage to points ratio is one in which a one percent cost difference translates to one percent of the total number of points allocated to cost. Instead, the County used a 2-point deduction for every 4% difference in price. Applying this new formula, a one percent cost difference corresponded to 2.5%, rather than one percent, of the number of points assigned to cost.

The County abandoned the cost formula it had promised to apply and instead created a new formula that disfavored ACME. This was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of ACME Bus Corp. v Orange County, 2016 NY Slip Op 07835, CtApp 11-22-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN AWARDING A COUNTY CONTRACT TO A PRIVATE BUS COMPANY, THE COUNTY'S DEVIATION FROM A FORMULA DESCRIBED IN ITS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS)

/ ,

CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, resolving two appeals stemming from the same incident, over a three-judge dissent in the “sentencing” appeal, affirmed the defendant’s conviction, finding that the concurrent/consecutive sentencing rules were properly applied, and the Alford plea was not tainted by erroneous information provided by defense counsel. Defendant, during the course of an armed robbery of several victims in a park, discharged a weapon, grazing one of the victims. Defendant was charged with robbery, attempted robbery and attempted first degree felony murder. The court noted that the Appellate Division here (4th Department) found that consecutive sentences for felony murder and the underlying felony could have been imposed (not the case here). while two other departments have held such sentences must be concurrent. The Court of Appeals did not address that issue because it was raised in a reply brief:

In People v Laureano, we explained that when “determining whether concurrent sentences are required, the sentencing court must first examine the statutory definitions of the crimes for which defendant has been convicted” (87 NY2d at 643). The court must then determine “whether the actus reus element is, by definition, the same for both offenses (under the first prong of the statute), or if the actus reus for one offense is, by definition, a material element of the second offense (under the second prong)” (id.). The court must focus on actus reus rather than mens rea “[b]ecause both prongs of Penal Law § 70.25 (2) refer to the ‘act or omission’ . . . that constitutes the offense” … .

If a defendant’s acts or omissions do not fit under either prong of the statute, “the People have satisfied their obligation of showing that concurrent sentences are not required” … . When there “is some overlap of the elements of multiple statutory offenses,” courts retain discretion to impose consecutive sentences “if the People can demonstrate that the acts or omissions committed by the defendant were separate and distinct acts” … , even “though they are part of a single transaction” … . * * *

We have not directly addressed whether the sentence on a first-degree felony murder charge must run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony. At the time of defendant’s sentencing, the 4th Department had yet to address this issue, but the 2nd and 3rd Departments had, holding that a sentence for first-degree felony murder had to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the underlying felony … . However, when faced with the issue in this case, the 4th Department affirmed the sentencing court’s conclusion that the sentences could run consecutively. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that defense counsel’s advice to defendant, even if erroneous, rendered him ineffective … . People v Couser, 2016 NY Slip Op 07831, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/SENTENCING (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/CONCURRENT SENTENCES (CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL)/ATTORNEYS (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/FELONY MURDER (TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

/

NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, determined the failure to administer coordination tests in a DWI case because of a “language barrier,” did not violate equal protection or due process. In this case the defendant was of Hispanic origin and spoke Spanish. The requirement that the tests be administered in English was deemed facially neutral and not directed at a suspect class, and the state was deemed to have a substantial interest in avoiding the cumbersome requirement that an arresting officer administer the tests in the arrestee’s language:

The challenged policy withstands rational basis review. Both the NYPD and the public have a substantial interest in ensuring the reliability of coordination tests, and the clarity of the instructions is crucial to the reliability of the results. Indeed, the record makes clear that coordination tests are designed not only to assess a suspect’s “motor skills in completing the specific tasks,” but also to evaluate the suspect’s “capacity to [] follow instructions.” But coordination tests are uniquely ill-suited for administration via translation; they are generally lengthy — containing thirty lines of instructions — and require contemporaneous demonstration and explanation of the tasks to be performed. * * *

… [T]he implicated State interests are substantial. The State has a clear interest in avoiding the cumbersome and prohibitively expensive administrative and fiscal burdens of providing the requested translation services. The State also has a strong interest in ensuring the accuracy of physical coordination tests, and the use of translated instructions — either through qualified interpreters or through multilingual officers — could compromise the test’s reliability. Given the substantial State interests involved, defendant’s due process claim must be rejected … . People v Aviles, 2016 NY Slip Op 07836, CtApp 11-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/DWI (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/EQUAL PROTECTION (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)/DUE PROCESS (NOT ADMINISTERING THE DWI COORDINATION TESTS TO DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A LANGUAGE BARRIER DID NOT VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS)

/ ,

IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a police officer who receives benefits under General Municipal Law 207-c is not barred from suing for benefits under General Municipal Law 205-e in a city which does not provide workers’ compensation benefits. The officer her alleged asbestos-related injury caused by the building which housed the police station:

“In addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law,” section 205-e permits police officers to bring tort claims for injuries sustained “while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by . . . superior officers” where such injuries occur “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments” (General Municipal Law § 205-e [1]). Separately, section 207-c “provides for the payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages,” along with payment for medical treatment and hospital care, “to a police officer or other covered municipal employee who is injured ‘in the performance of his [or her] duties’ or is taken ill ‘as a result of the performance of [such] duties'” * * *

… [W]e reject the City’s argument, also adopted by the dissent, that General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits can be equated to workers’ compensation benefits for purposes of interpreting the proviso contained in General Municipal Law § 205-e [FN2]. The language of section 205-e prohibits only recipients of workers’ compensation benefits from commencing suit against their employers; it does not, by its terms, bar the commencement of suits by recipients of section 207-c benefits — which we have repeatedly recognized to be separate and distinct from workers’ compensation benefits. In fact, section 205-e states that the right contained therein is “[i]n addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law” (General Municipal Law § 205-e [1]). Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, 2016 NY Slip Op 07817, CtApp 11-21-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/POLICE OFFICERS (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)/WORKERS COMPENSATION LAW (IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS POLICE OFFICERS, AN OFFICER RECEIVING BENEFITS PURSUANT TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c IS NOT BARRED FROM SUING FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e BENEFITS)

/

PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Defendant fell from an A-frame ladder after receiving an electrical shock:

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). While using an A-frame ladder, plaintiff fell after receiving an electrical shock. Questions of fact exist as to whether the ladder failed to provide proper protection, and whether plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07823, CtApp 11-21-16

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

/

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the New York Department of State’s ruling that Entergy was required to undergo a Coastal Management Plan (CMP) consistency review of its application to renew licenses to operate nuclear reactors at Indian Point for another 20 years was rational:

… [A]side from Department of State’s interpretation of the specific language of the exemptions (to a CMP review), it is plain that these narrow exemptions for projects that had final environmental impact statements completed prior to the adoption of the CMP do not apply to re-licensing. Entergy’s current application for a license to operate the Indian Point nuclear reactors for an additional 20 years is a new federal action, involving a new project, with different impacts and concerns than were present when the initial environmental impact statements were issued over 40 years ago. Thus, just as renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant triggers the requirement that the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] produce a supplemental environmental impact statement (see 10 CFR § 51.20), both the Coastal Zone Management Act and the CMP require consistency review for re-licensing of nuclear facilities. The Department’s position that the Indian Point reactors are not forever exempt from consistency review under the CMP, is reasonable.

In sum, the Department of State’s interpretation of the exemptions in the Coastal Management Program, and its conclusion that Entergy’s application to re-license the nuclear reactors at Indian Point is subject to consistency review are rational, and must be sustained.  Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. v New York State Dept. of State, 2016 NY Slip Op 07821, CtApp 11-21-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)/INDAN POINT (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN) /COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (NY YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION TO RENEW LICENSES TO OPERATE NUCLEAR REACTORS AT INDIAN POINT FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS WAS SUBJECT TO A CONSISTENCY REVIEW UNDER THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN)

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