You are here: / NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) Has Authority to Address...

Search Results

/ ,

NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) Has Authority to Address the Pollution of New York Waters by Oil and Gas Producer Operating Across the Border in Pennsylvania/DEC’s Authority Not Demonstrated to Be Preempted by Federal Clean Water Act

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a petition brought by an oil and gas producer seeking to prohibit the New York State Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) from enforcing consent orders which concern the pollution of Yeager Brook in the Allegany State Park.  The oil and gas producer is operating across the border in Pennsylvania on land owned by the US Forest Service.  The court held that the DEC has the authority to address the pollution of New York waters and rejected the argument that the DEC’s authority to act was preempted by the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA):

Beginning in 2010, personnel of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation reported pollution, including turbidity, color change, and suspended sediment, in New York’s Yeager Brook, downstream from and caused by petitioner’s operations in Pennsylvania, in contravention of New York’s water quality standards. Subsequently, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) entered into two consent orders with petitioner concerning the aforementioned pollution. Because of alleged continued and ongoing violations, the DEC commenced an administrative proceeding in New York seeking to enforce the consent orders and the penalties for the violations thereof. Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding contending, inter alia, that the DEC is acting in excess of its jurisdiction because the federal Clean Water Act ([CWA] 33 USC § 1251 et seq.) preempts the application of an affected state’s laws and regulations to an out-of-state point source … .

As the party seeking a writ of prohibition, petitioner bears a “heavy burden” of establishing a “clear legal right to relief or that prohibition would provide a more complete and efficacious remedy than the administrative proceeding and resulting judicial review” … . We conclude that respondents in support of their motion to dismiss established as a matter of law that petitioner could not meet that burden, and Supreme Court therefore properly granted the motion. The DEC had the statutory authority and jurisdiction to enter into the consent orders at issue and to commence the administrative proceeding to enforce those orders (see ECL 17-0303 [2], [4] [a], [b]; [5] [a]; see also ECL 17-0105 [1]; ECL 17-0501). Petitioner has failed to establish in this proceeding that the DEC’s exercise of such authority and jurisdiction is clearly preempted by the CWA, inasmuch as it has not shown that enforcement of the consent orders would “stand[] as an obstacle to the full implementation of the CWA” … . Moreover, the preemptive effect of the CWA “should be determined, in the first instance, through the administrative process”… . “[E]ven as to a clearly ultra vires act, prohibition does not lie against an administrative agency if another avenue of judicial review is available, absent a demonstration of irreparable injury to the applicant if [it] is relegated to such other course” … . No such irreparable injury has been demonstrated here.  Matter of US Energy Dev Corp v NYS Department of Environmental Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 04591, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

Petition for Modification of Custody Should Not Have Been Dismissed Without a Hearing

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed mother’s petition for a modification of custody without holding a hearing:

It is well settled that a party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show “a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the child[ren]” … . Although a “hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order”… , we conclude that the mother made a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to warrant a hearing … . “[T]he mother’s allegations that [the father] imposed excessive and inappropriate discipline on the subject children, including corporal punishment, [were] sufficient to warrant a hearing” … , as were the mother’s allegations that the father had refused to permit her to exercise visitation with the subject children for four weeks … . Consequently, we agree with the mother that the court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting a hearing.  Matter of Isler v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04678, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/ ,

Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b Which Is Relevant Solely to Destitute or Dependent Children

The Fourth Department determined father’s parental rights should not have been terminated pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b, which was not applicable:

Social Services Law § 384-b is entitled “Guardianship and custody of destitute or dependent children; commitment by court order; modification of commitment and restoration of parental rights” (emphasis added). A destitute child is defined as a child “who is in a state of want or suffering due to lack of sufficient food, clothing, shelter, or medical or surgical care,” does not fit within the definition of an abused or neglected child and is without any parent or caretaker; “a child who is . . . absent from his or her legal residence without the consent of his or her parent, legal guardian or custodian”; “a child . . . who is without a place of shelter where supervision and care are available;” or “a person who is a former foster care youth under the age of twenty-one who was previously placed in the care and custody of [DSS] . . . and who was discharged from foster care . . . , [and] who has returned to foster care” (§ 371 [3] [a] – [d]). A dependent child is defined as “a child who is in the custody of, or wholly or partly maintained by an authorized agency or an institution, society or other organization of charitable, eleemosynary, correctional, or reformatory character” (§ 371 [7]). It is indisputable that the subject child is neither a destitute nor a dependent child. Social Services Law § 384-b is thus inapplicable to the child and may not be invoked by either the mother or DSS as a means to terminate the father’s parental rights. We therefore reverse the order and grant the father’s motion to dismiss the petition. We note, however, that our determination does not leave the mother without a remedy. She may seek to dispense with the father’s consent to adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (2) (a) … . Matter of Anastasia I, 2014 NY Slip Op 04657, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/ ,

Party Represented by Counsel at a Scheduled Court Appearance Has Not Failed to Appear

In affirming the termination of mother’s parental rights, the Fourth Department noted that a party who is represented by an attorney at a scheduled court appearance has not failed to appear:

A party who is represented at a scheduled court appearance by an attorney has not failed to appear’ ” … . The mother initially appeared at the fact-finding hearing, and her attorney participated in the hearing by presenting an opening statement and cross-examining the first witness. The mother’s attorney chose not to participate in the remainder of the hearing when the mother left the courtroom after the first witness testified. Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney “appeared at and participated in the hearing” until the mother left the courtroom, “there was no default”… . Matter of Savanna G, 2014 NY Slip Op 04658, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/ ,

Mother Not Adequately Apprised of Her Right to Counsel—New Hearing Ordered

The Fourth Department determined a new hearing was required because mother was not adequately apprised of her right to counsel:

We agree with the mother that she was denied her right to counsel. The mother was entitled to representation based upon her status as a respondent in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding and a person alleged to be in willful violation of a court order, and Family Court’s inquiry concerning her decision to proceed pro se was insufficient to enable the court to determine whether she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to counsel… . Matter of Seifert v Pastwick, 2014 NY Slip Op 04677, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement

The Third Department upheld the determination that claimant was an employee, entitled to unemployment benefits, despite the existence of an independent contractor agreement.  Claimant was hired by AML, a consulting firm, for a four-week research project for one of AML’s clients.  Claimant worked at the client’s location:

Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . In making this determination, particularly where the work of professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the employer exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” … . Here, undisputed evidence was presented that AML set claimant’s rate of pay, established her work hours, provided training, conferred with her on a regular basis, reviewed her work product and submitted her final report to the client. Significantly, although claimant physically worked at the client’s location, an AML representative was present on a daily basis to discuss the project with claimant. Under the circumstances presented, notwithstanding the existence of the independent contractor agreement, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant and those similarly situated research analysts were AML’s employees … . Matter of Stewart…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04539, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

/ ,

Error for Trial Judge to Defer to Prosecutor’s Wish to Dismiss a Count of an Indictment—The Judge Must Exercise His or Her Own Discretion on the Issue

The First Department determined the trial judge had erroneously deferred to the prosecutor’s wish to dismiss a count of the indictment before submitting the case to the jury.  The judge, not the prosecutor, has the discretion to dismiss counts.  The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant argues on appeal that the court improperly deferred to the People’s desire to withdraw the fourth-degree possession charge, relying on People v Extale (18 NY3d 690 [2012]). In Extale, the defendant was indicted for, inter alia, first-degree assault and first-degree vehicular assault, in connection with his having intentionally driven a pickup truck into a police officer. Before the trial of those charges, the prosecutor announced the People’s intention to withdraw the vehicular assault count, and the court agreed with the prosecutor that the People had “the authority” to do so. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “the issue was one for the trial court’s discretion, not the prosecutor’s” (18 NY3d at 695). * * *

On the merits, we agree with defendant that the court’s position with respect to the count was no different from that of the trial court in Extale, which was found by the Court of Appeals to be erroneous. No fair reading of the trial record supports the People’s argument that the trial court exercised its discretion in dismissing the charge. Indeed, its comment that “the People can dismiss [the count]” was equivalent to the Extale trial court’s comment that the prosecutor “ha[d] the authority” to dismiss the vehicular assault count (18 NY3d at 693). People v Silvestre, 2014 NY Slip Op 04562, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

/ ,

Court’s Erroneous Jury Instruction Re: State’s Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Alleged Crime Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Objection Is Required to Preserve the Issue for Appeal

The First Department determined that the court’s erroneous jury instruction concerning the state’s terretorial jurisdiction over the case, as opposed to whether the state actually had territorial jurisdiction, required preservation by objection:

The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution was required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. As the People concede, the charge was erroneous in this regard . On the contrary, the People were required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d at 470). Moreover, territorial jurisdiction is not waivable (id. at 471). Our analysis, however, does not end with a citation to McLaughlin. The issue before us involves the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction itself. Although a challenge to a court’s territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived, a claim of error in a court’s instructions on the subject requires preservation by way of an appropriate objection at the court of first instance. Nonetheless, the requirement of preservation is subject to an exception that exists for “mode of proceedings” errors that consist of the most fundamental flaws implicating jurisdictional matters or constitutional rights that go to the very heart of the criminal justice process … . Defendant asserts that the mode of proceedings exception applies here. People v Carvajal (6 NY3d 305 [2005]), a case involving an interstate drug operation, is illustrative. In Carvajal, the Court noted that the defendant had “relinquished his opportunity to hold the People to their burden of proof, and did not preserve his current contention that the jury should have decided whether the People proved jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 311-312). Citing People v Greenberg (89 NY2d 553 [1997]), the Carvajal Court aptly observed that “a defendant’s failure to request a jury charge on territorial jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of a jury charge claim, that failure does not amount to waiver of the fundamental question whether – as a matter of law – this State has the power to hear the case” (id. at 312). In this case, it is undisputed that defendant did not object to the trial court’s erroneous charge on the burden of proof with respect to territorial jurisdiction. Guided by Carvajal, we find that defendant was required, but failed, to preserve his present challenge to the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction.  People v Polk, 2014 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

/

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Not Liable After Liability Has Shifted to Special Fund—Board Overruled Precedent Holding Otherwise When the Carrier is Responsible for Delay Until the Special Fund Is Available to Assume Liability

The Third Department upheld the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the workers’ compensation carrier is not liable for medical expenses after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. The Board had the power to overrule prior precedent which allowed the carrier to remain liable if it was attempting to delay providing benefits in order to have liability shifted to the Special Fund:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) provides that, where seven years have passed from the date of claimant’s injury and three years have passed from the date of the last payment of compensation, “if an award is made it shall be against the [S]pecial [F]und” (emphasis added). Both of those time periods have undoubtedly been met in this case. The Board has previously observed, however, that a carrier with a pending application to shift liability may be tempted to delay in approving necessary medical expenses in order to avoid the complications of paying for them and later seeking reimbursement from the Special Fund. In an effort to address that concern, the Board had held that, in certain instances, a carrier would be held liable for medical expenses that would otherwise be the responsibility of the Special Fund if it “had attempted to delay payment for the surgery until after a determination was made regarding the applicability of [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 25-a, and not based . . . on a good faith objection to the surgery” … .

In the decision at issue here, the Board discussed that precedent at length and overruled it, which it was free to do given that it “set forth its reasons for doing so” and considered appropriate statutory and judicial authorities … . * * *

“The purpose of [Workers’ Compensation Law § ] 25-a is to save employers and insurance carriers from liability . . . for stale claims of injured employees” … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) furthers that purpose by requiring that any award “shall be [made] against the [S]pecial [F]und” if the requisite time periods have elapsed (emphasis added). As both the language and purpose of the statute demonstrate, the carrier “has no further interest in [the] payment of the claim” once liability has shifted to the Special Fund … , and “the Board ha[s] no power to direct that the award be paid by the [carrier] instead of out of the [S]pecial [F]und” under those circumstances … . Thus, the Board properly concluded that the statute does not permit a carrier to be held liable for medical expenses incurred after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. Matter of Ercole v New York State Police, 2014 NY Slip Op 04550, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

/ , ,

Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not When Plaintiff Becomes Aware of It/Continuous Representation Doctrine Can Not Be Invoked to Toll Statute of Limitations When Plaintiff Was Notified Representation Was Formally Closed

In affirming the dismissal of an attorney malpractice cause of action, the First Department noted that the cause of action accrued when an appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution, irrespective of whether the plaintiff was aware of the dismissal.  In addition, the court noted that a letter to the plaintiff which indicated the defendants’ represented of plaintiff was formally closed precluded the plaintiff from relying on the continuous representation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations:

The first cause of action, alleging legal malpractice, accrued at the time that plaintiff’s appeal of the order that granted summary judgment dismissing his underlying Labor Law claims was dismissed for want of prosecution, in July 2006, notwithstanding his lack of knowledge of the dismissal … . Plaintiff then had three years to commence a malpractice action against defendants (see CPLR 214[6]), absent an applicable ground for tolling the limitations period. He did not commence this action until March 2012.

Plaintiff relies on the continuous representation doctrine. However, in June 2008, defendants sent him a letter enclosing the 2nd Department’s affirmance of the underlying judgment and formally closing their representation of him. The letter, which plaintiff did not object to, demonstrates that the parties lacked “a mutual understanding of the need for further representation on the specific subject underlying the malpractice claim” … . Even accepting that defendants concealed from plaintiff the fact that his appeal was dismissed as abandoned, their letter placed him on notice that his attorney-client relationship with them had ended… . McDonald v Edelman & Edelman, PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04560, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

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