You are here: / Environmental Law
,

TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) did not violate any provisions of the town code or the State Environmental Quality Review Act when it issued a special use permit and variances allowing the construction of a cell tower (wireless telecommunications facility or WTF):

“Where, as here, the zoning ordinance authorizes a use permit subject to administrative approval, the applicant need only show that the use is contemplated by the ordinance and that it complies with the conditions imposed to minimize anticipated impact on the surrounding area . . . The [zoning authority] is required to grant a special use permit unless it has reasonable grounds for denying the application”  … . …

Although the Planning Department initially concluded that aspects of the application would not be consistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan, it recommended approval of the application upon certain conditions, which included employing stealth design to disguise the tower as an evergreen tree and reconfiguring the site plan to move the tower as far away as possible from adjacent residences. After holding a public hearing and formally considering the application, the ZBA approved the application subject to the recommended conditions and issued a written decision to that effect … . Thus, we conclude that there is no merit to petitioners’ contention that the special use permit ultimately granted by the ZBA was inconsistent with the Town’s comprehensive plan. …

… [W]e conclude that the requirements for area variances set forth in Town Law § 267-b (3) are inapplicable here inasmuch as the ZBA issued waivers pursuant to Town Law § 274-b (5). The record also establishes that Verizon demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the waivers would have “no significant effect on the health, safety and welfare of the Town, its residents and other service providers” (ch 203, § 6-7-21). Matter of Edwards v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Amherst, 2018 NY Slip Op 05430, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

ZONING (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/SPECIAL USE PERMIT (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/VARIANCES  (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL TOWERS (TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WHEN IT GRANTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CELL TOWER (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FOREIGN CORPORATION MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, THE CORPORATION HAS NO PRESENT CONTACTS IN NEW YORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New York does not have jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which might be liable for contamination of plaintiffs’ property, but which has no present contacts in New York. Successor liability is a tort concept which cannot be used to gain jurisdiction over the successor corporation:

It is undisputed that defendant, a foreign corporation with no present contacts in this State, is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under either CPLR 301 or 302 (a) (see Semenetz v Sherling & Walden, Inc., 21 AD3d 1138, 1139-1140 [3d Dept 2005], affd on other grounds 7 NY3d 194 [2006]). Nevertheless, plaintiffs contend that personal jurisdiction exists over defendant because it ostensibly bears successor liability for a predecessor corporation that was itself subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. The 3rd Department, however, expressly rejected that jurisdictional theory in Semenetz (see id. at 1140). The “successor liability rule[s],” wrote the Semenetz court, “deal with the concept of tort liability, not jurisdiction. When and if [successor liability] is found applicable, the corporate successor would be subject to liability for the torts of its predecessor in any forum having in personam jurisdiction over the successor, but the [successor liability rules] do not and cannot confer such jurisdiction over the successor in the first instance” (id.) BRG Corp. v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05425, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

 

, ,

CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a comprehensive decision describing the relevant law and procedures, determined the city had complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the Eminent Domain Procedure Law and the prior public use doctrine in determining the taking of a strip of land for a bicycle-pedestrian trial would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment:

… [P]etitioners have failed to demonstrate how the City’s condemnation of the Village’s property would “interfere with or destroy the public use” … . Accordingly, the prior public use doctrine will not prevent the City from condemning the Village’s property. * * *

… [T]he City … performed the steps required in the SEQRA review process and considered areas of potential environmental concern, but failed to provide an adequate written explanation for its negative declaration. Upon realizing its mistake (albeit after receiving communications from petitioners complaining about the negative declaration), and before approving the condemnation of property in relation to the project, the City held a public meeting and formally adopted the supplemental resolution to remedy the defects in the July 2017 negative declaration … . Under the circumstances, remittal to the City for further environmental review or explanation of its determination would be redundant … . …

The City did not abuse its discretion in determining the scope of the proposed taking. Although a municipality cannot use the power of eminent domain to take “‘property not necessary to fulfill [a] public purpose, it is generally accepted that the condemnor has broad discretion in deciding what land is necessary to fulfill that purpose'” … . Matter of Village of Ballston Spa v City of Saratoga Springs, 2018 NY Slip Op 05248, Third Dept 7-12-18

EMINENT DOMAIN (CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))/CONDEMNATION (CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, ITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, ITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))/BICYCLES (CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a petition to annul the town’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a truck stop project. The court further found that the town planning board did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to follow a Local Law (which required an environmental impact statement (EIS)) because the Local Law conflicted with SEQRA and was therefore invalid:

… [W]e conclude that petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies … . The record establishes that the Planning Board, as the lead agency on the project, held a public hearing that petitioner’s counsel attended, but during which he remained silent. Although petitioner made a FOIL request two days after the public hearing, that request did not alert the Planning Board of any specific concerns. …

“A local law that is inconsistent with SEQRA’ must be invalidated” … . “[I]nconsistency has been found where local laws prohibit what would have been permissible under State law or impose prerequisite additional restrictions on rights under State law, so as to inhibit operation of the State’s general laws” … . Here, section 59-3 (A) of the Town Code provided that “Type I actions are likely to have an effect on the environment and will, therefore, require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.” SEQRA, on the other hand, provides that, “[t]he lead agency must determine the significance of any Type I . . . action . . . [and,] [t]o require an EIS for a proposed action, the lead agency must determine that the action may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact” … . Thus, Chapter 59 is inconsistent with SEQRA because SEQRA permits a negative declaration for Type I actions, whereas Chapter 59 effectively precluded a negative declaration in such actions. Matter of Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC v Town Bd. of Town of Bath, 2018 NY Slip Op 05082, Fourth Dept 7-6-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ((PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, (PETITION SEEKING TO ANNUL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) CONCERNING A TRUCK STOP PROJECT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, TOWN PLANNING BOARD DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT FAILED TO FOLLOW A LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH SEQRA (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the planning board’s finding that a multi-family housing project would not have a significant impart on the environment was arbitrary and capricious. The matter was remitted for preparation of an environmental impact statement:

… [T]he full Environmental Assessment Form (hereinafter EAF) prepared by the project sponsor indicated that the proposed action would affect, among other things, aesthetic and historic resources and the character of the existing community, and that the parcel’s forestation would be reduced from 2.75 acres to .30 acres. In issuing its negative declaration, the Planning Board listed approximately 29 reasons supporting its determination. The Planning Board noted that the project would not significantly impact the adjacent Dwight Street-Hooker Avenue Historic District (hereinafter the historic district). However, in making that determination, the Planning Board merely relied upon a letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreations and Historic Preservation, which stated only that the proposed action would not have an adverse impact on the historic district. Such a conclusory statement fails to fulfill the reasoned elaboration requirement of SEQRA … .

With regard to the impact on vegetation or fauna, the EAF contemplates the reduction of the 3.4-acre parcel’s forestation from 2.75 acres to .30 acres. However, the negative declaration inexplicably stated that “[t]he proposed action will not result in the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna.” In the context of this project, the level of deforestation is significant.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the proposed action may have significant adverse environmental impacts upon one or more areas of environmental concern… . Thus, the Planning Board’s issuance of a negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Peterson v Planning Bd. of the City of Poughkeepsie, 2018 NY Slip Op 05049, Second Dept 7-5-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING  (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, MATTER REMITTED FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town planning board’s denial of petitioner’s application for a wetland control permit and site plan approval was properly annulled by Supreme Court. The planning board’s action departed from many prior determinations and the planning board did not set forth any factual reasons for the departure:

… ” [A] local planning board has broad discretion in reaching its determination on applications . . . and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion'”… . ” A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious'” … . Where an agency reaches contrary results on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation … . “An agency’s failure to provide a valid and rational explanation for its departure from its prior precedent mandates reversal’ regardless of whether the record otherwise supports the determination” … .

Here, the Planning Board failed to set forth any factual basis in the determination as to why it was departing from numerous prior determinations that, for example, permitted larger encroachments into wetland and wetland buffer areas and permitted encroachments of the same or similar type into those areas within the immediate vicinity of the petitioner’s lot. The Planning Board’s belated effort to provide such distinctions are not properly before this Court … . Matter of Nicolai v McLaughlin, 2018 NY Slip Op 05046, Second Dept 7-5-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ZONING,  PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))

,

LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the Westchester County Solid Waste Commission properly found that petitioner had not obtained a permit to allow the transport of waste within Westchester County and imposed a $15,000 fine. Petitioner had obtained a permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and argued that the Westchester County law was preempted by the state law and violated the Commerce Clause. The Second Department rejected those arguments:

“The constitutional home rule provision confers broad police power upon local government relating to the welfare of its citizens”… . In instances where the State has demonstrated its intent to preempt an entire field and preclude any further local regulation, a local law that regulates the same subject matter is considered inconsistent and will not be given effect. “It is . . . well settled that, if a town or other local government is otherwise authorized to legislate, it is not forbidden to do so unless the State, expressly or impliedly, has evinced an unmistakable desire to avoid the possibility that the local legislation will not be on all fours with that of the State” … . The legislature’s intent to preempt a particular area can be inferred from a declaration of policy or from a comprehensive and detailed scheme in a particular area … . However, the fact that State and local laws touch upon the same area is insufficient to support a determination that the State law has preempted the entire field of regulation in a given area … .

In Monroe-Livingston Sanitary Landfill v Town of Caledonia (51 NY2d 679, 683-684), the Court of Appeals held that the State had not preempted the field of waste management through the solid waste disposal provisions that then existed in the Environmental Conservation Law. Eight years after the decision in Monroe-Livingston, the Legislature added the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 (hereinafter the Act) to the Environmental Conservation Law. Had the Legislature intended to preempt the local regulation of solid waste management, it could have expressly said so in the Act. Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v Westchester County Solid Waste Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 6-27-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))/WASTE (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, MUNICIPAL LAW, LOCAL LAW REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WASTE WITHIN THE COUNTY WAS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (WHICH ALSO REQUIRED A PERMIT) AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PETITIONER PROPERLY FINED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COUNTY PERMIT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ gross negligence cause of action and demand for punitive damages should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged the defendant insurer (State Farm) and the defendant engineering firm (H2M) were grossly negligent in supervising the remediation of oil contamination on plaintiffs’ property. The Second Department noted that the causes of action in the amended complaint related back to the allegations in the original complaint and were not, therefore time-barred:

The Supreme Court should not have granted those branches of State Farm’s and H2M’s motions which were to dismiss the cause of action alleging gross negligence insofar as asserted against each of them. As the original complaint gave notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proven as to the gross negligence causes of action, those causes of action related back to the date of timely filing of the original complaint … .

The amended complaint stated a viable gross negligence cause of action as against State Farm and H2M. Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack[ ] of intentional wrongdoing’ or evince[ ] a reckless indifference to the rights of others'”… .. Generally, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact… .

The allegations, inter alia, that State Farm and H2M greatly exacerbated the existing damage to the property by causing the spread of the existing contamination and by directing the backfilling of areas of the property after leaving in place significant existing contamination are sufficient to support a gross negligence cause of action … . Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 03499, Second Dept 5-16-18

​NEGLIGENCE (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION BACK, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/RELATION BACK (AMENDED COMPLAINT, GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department vacated the village board’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings that the construction of a parking garage would not result in a substantial increase in traffic. The board conducted a SEQRA review in preparation for a condemnation proceeding to acquire the land:

… [T]he record fails to establish that the Village Board took the requisite hard look at potential traffic implications associated with the construction of a parking garage on the subject property or to set forth a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination that the development of the property would not result in any substantial increase in traffic. Upon review of an eminent domain proceeding, courts are required to determine whether the condemnor’s findings and determinations comply with ECL article 8, which is incorporated as part of the required procedures under EDPL [Eminent Domain Procedure Law] article 2 … . In assessing compliance with the substantive mandates of SEQRA, we are tasked with reviewing the record to determine whether the Village Board, as the lead agency, “identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination” … . “Literal compliance with both the letter and spirit of SEQRA is required and substantial compliance will not suffice” … .

… An adverse change in traffic levels is … a potential area of environmental concern … .

During both the public hearing and the written comment period, concerns regarding increased traffic congestion and other potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed condemnation were repeatedly voiced. Yet, the record is bereft of any evidence that the Village Board took the requisite hard look at these potential traffic implications. Matter of Adirondack Historical Assn. v Village of Lake Placid/lake Placid Vil., Inc.,2018 NY Slip Op 03194, Third Dept 5-3-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/TRAFFIC (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (TRAFFIC, VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/CONDEMNATION (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))/EMINENT DOMAIN (MUNICIPAL LAW, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rumsey, over a two-justice partial dissent, upheld the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) determinations regarding snowmobile trails in newly added portions of the Adirondack Park. Because approval of the trails was still subject to permits and variances, two of petitioners’ causes of action were deemed not ripe for review. The Third Department determined there was no conflict between the Rivers System Act and the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan. The Rivers System Act was deemed to control and the act allowed the proposed snowmobile traffic as a continuation of an existing use. And the Third Department held that a 2009 “guidance” document for the siting of snowmobile trails adopted by the DEC did not commit the DEC to a definite course of future action. Concerning the “ripeness” issue, the court wrote:

… [P]ermits and variances must be obtained through further administrative action before the proposed uses may be established. Specifically, permits are required to erect a bridge over a scenic river …  or to construct a trail within a scenic river area … . Moreover, variances are required for the use of motorized vehicles within scenic river areas … , and for construction of a Class II snowmobile trail, to the extent that it may exceed the maximum trail width of four feet that is permitted by regulation … . Permit and variance applications are governed by the Uniform Procedures Act … , which imposes conditions related to the substantive relief sought and provides the opportunity for further public participation. No permit or variance may be granted unless the proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Rivers System Act … , and conditions may be imposed as necessary to preserve and protect affected river resources or to assure compliance with the Rivers System Act … . Moreover, there is an opportunity for public comment on applications for a permit or a variance …  and the granting of a permit or variance may be challenged through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Thus, inasmuch as the harms upon which the first and second causes of action are based may be prevented or ameliorated by further administrative action, Supreme Court correctly concluded that the first and second causes of action are not ripe for judicial review. Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of The Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2018 NY Slip Op 03193. Third Dept 5-3-18

​ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/ADIRONDACK PARK (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RIPENESS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/RIPENESS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/SNOWMOBILES (ADIRONDACK PARK, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/LAND USE (ADIRONDACK PARK, SNOWMOBILES, (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (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