You are here: / Environmental Law
, ,

Provision of County Charter Requiring a Referendum to Amend the Drinking Water Protection Program Is Valid and Enforceable—Amendment Enacted Without the Referendum Is Null and Void—Both Individual and Organizational Plaintiffs Had Standing to Contest the Amendment

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court findng that: (1) the plaintiffs had standing to contest the amendment of the Suffolk County Drinking Water Protection Program (DWPP) on the ground that the referendum required by the county charter was not held; and (2) the resolution enacted in the absence of a referendum was null and void.  The court noted the fact that the pleadings were not included in plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the reason Supreme Court denied the motion, was not fatal to the motion:

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing. An action commenced by natural persons pursuant to General Municipal Law § 51 “may take the form of [an] action for a declaratory judgment” … . To have standing based upon their status as taxpayers, the individual plaintiffs were required to allege that the challenged act constituted a waste of or injury to public funds or, alternatively, that the challenged act was both illegal and “imperil[ed] the public interests or [was] calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief” … . Here, the plaintiffs alleged, in detail, that the defendants violated the Suffolk County Charter by enacting the Amendment in the absence of approval pursuant to a public referendum, and that this enactment threatened public funds expressly dedicated to protecting the drinking water supply in the County and lands in the Pine Barrens. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the enactment of the challenged amendment without a public referendum is illegal insofar as it violates the Suffolk County Charter, and that this enactment imperiled the public interest or was calculated to work public injury or produce some public mischief… . …

Although the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to submit a copy of the pleadings with their motion papers, we nonetheless exercise our discretion to reach the merits. Notwithstanding that CPLR 3212(b) requires that motions for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings, CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to “disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced” … . * * *

[The] provisions of the New York Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law do not prevent Suffolk County from adopting a charter provision like the one at issue here, which requires approval by a public referendum in order to amend or repeal the DWPP in the future (see Municipal Home Rule Law § 11[2][a]; § 34[4]…). Although the relevant charter provision requires a public referendum that is denominated as a “mandatory” referendum, that public referendum is not mandated by State law (cf. Municipal Home Rule Law § 23). Rather, the relevant charter provision constitutes the County’s mode of granting permission to the electorate to approve or disapprove, by means of a public referendum, proposed changes to the DWPP. Hence, the public referendum countenanced by the Suffolk County Charter can properly be characterized as a “permissive” referendum within the meaning of the New York Constitution and the Municipal Home Rule Law … . Long Is Pine Barrens Socy Inc v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 07633, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

,

Organizations Representing Lakeshore Residents Should Have Been Allowed to Intervene in an Action Concerning Regulation of Lake Water Levels (Dictated by an 80-Year-Old Injunction)—Neither the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel Nor Laches Was a Bar to the Relief Sought by the Lakeshore Residents

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed organizations representing hundreds of lakeshore residents (PLA and Sandy Knolls) to intervene in an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding concerning an 80-year-old injunction re: the operation of a dam to control water levels in the lake.  The court held that the neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel nor laches was a bar to the relief sought by the lakeshore residents:

“Pursuant to CPLR 7802 (d), a court may allow other interested persons to intervene” in proceedings brought against public agencies … . Further, intervention is to be granted as of right in any action or proceeding where a nonparty demonstrates that its interest in the matter is not being duly represented and the nonparty may be “bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012 [a] [2]) or, alternatively, may be permitted by the court “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action [or proceeding] have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013…). * * *

Although requests for leave to intervene invoke a court’s discretionary authority …, the thorough and well-reasoned submissions of the PLA and Sandy Knolls have shown that they have a “‘direct and substantial interest’ in the outcome of this litigation” and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying their motions to intervene … . Further, inasmuch as the motions to intervene were filed in the months after Supreme Court issued its order in proceeding No. 1, but before the final judgment was rendered in that proceeding more than a year and one half later, and approximately two years before judgment was entered in proceeding No. 2, we do not agree that denial of the motions on untimeliness grounds was necessitated … . Nor are there any indicia of undue prejudice to petitioners that would warrant the exclusion of the proposed intervenors from the matters . In light of this determination, the argument that the PLA and Sandy Knolls should have been joined as necessary parties has become academic.

Next, we consider Supreme Court’s finding …that collateral estoppel principles precluded respondents from challenging the [injunction]. As a “narrower species of res judicata,” the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from retrying “an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity” … . In this regard, privity is an amorphous term not “susceptible to ease of application” …, and a court’s finding that differing parties are in privity requires consideration of “the character, right and extent of a party’s role in one proceeding as it bears on the intervention of the collateral estoppel doctrine in another” … . * * *[R]espondents were never given “a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now said to be controlling” …, nor were their interests properly represented by [the defendant in the original injunction action], so as to warrant the application of collateral estoppel … . Borst v International Paper Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 07224, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

, , ,

Permit Allowing the Killing of 62 Deer Properly Issued/Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applied

The Second Department determined an Article 78 proceeding contesting a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) allowing Vassar College to kill 62 deer was properly dismissed.  At the time of the appeal, the permit had already expired and the deer had been killed.  The court determined the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the issue is likely to reappear:

 …[A]n exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable … .

Here, although the subject deer cull has been completed and the challenged permit has expired, the appellants raise a substantial and novel issue as to whether the DEC is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] related to the issuance of nuisance deer permits. The issue is likely to recur and to evade appellate review, given the extremely short period of time during which such permits are valid … . * * *

Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the 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” … . “In a statutory scheme whose purpose is that the agency decision-makers focus attention on environmental concerns, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … . Further, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the DEC’s issuance of a nuisance deer permit to Vassar pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0521 complied with the requirements of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. The DEC’s use of a generic EIS, updated with a supplemental findings statement, to assess the impacts of the issuance of nuisance deer permits as a part of its wildlife game species management program was proper… . Matter of In Defense of Animals v Vassar College, 2014 NY Slip Op 07162, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Contest Negative SEQRA Finding/”Alienation of Parkland” and “Public Trust” Arguments Rejected

The Fourth Department determined petitioner did not have standing to contest the negative finding pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)  The finding concerned a storage facility to be built for the Maid of the Mist excursion boats on state-park land along the Niagara River.  The petitioner, Niagara Preservation Coalition, Inc., was formed to challenge the project.  In the course of the decision, the Fourth Department rejected the “alienation of parkland” and “public trust” arguments:

We conclude that petitioner failed to establish either an injury, or that it is the proper party to seek redress. Although petitioner submitted a supplemental affidavit of one of its members stating that he has a longtime personal and professional interest in the gorge trail and the ruins of the former hydroelectric plant, ” interest’ and injury’ are not synonymous . . . A general—or even special— interest in the subject matter is insufficient to confer standing, absent an injury distinct from the public in the particular circumstances of the case” … . “Appreciation for historical and architectural [artifacts] does not rise to the level of injury different from that of the public at large for standing purposes” … . Here, petitioner failed to establish an injury distinct from members of the public who use the gorge trail to access the ruins of the former hydroelectric plant … , and thus it lacks standing to contest the SEQRA determination. * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner has standing to allege alienation of parkland …, as it alleges in its third cause of action, we conclude that the court properly refused to issue a declaration that respondents …were required to obtain legislative approval for the construction of the facility within the confines of Niagara Falls State Park. It is well established “that parkland is impressed with a public trust, requiring legislative approval before it can be alienated or used for an extended period for non-park purposes” … . It is undisputed, however, that there is no case law in New York applying the “public trust” principle to state parks. The cases apply only to municipal parks … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [state] parks …are governed by the ” public trust doctrine’ ” … , which respondents dispute …, “what [petitioner] show[s here] is a dispute with public authorities about what is desirable for the park[,] . . . not a demonstration of illegality” … . Matter of Niagara Preserv Coalition Inc v New York Power Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 06694, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

,

General Permit for Municipal Storm Water Discharge Does Not Violate Federal or State Law

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination that a general permit issued by the NYS  Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to municipalities for storm water discharge violated federal and state law.  One of the principle objections to the general permit was that it did not ensure municipalities would set appropriate limits on storm water pollutants.  The decision is very detailed and cannot be briefly summarized here:

The petition organized the alleged violations of state and federal law into four general groups, asserting that:

(1) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities reduced their pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable, in violation of 33 USC § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) and ECL 17-0808(3)(c);

(2) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities complied with state water quality standards, in violation of ECL 17-0811(5) and ECL 17-0813;

(3) the General Permit failed to ensure that small municipalities monitored their storm water discharges, in violation of 33 USC § 1318(a) and ECL 17-0815(8); and

(4) the General Permit did not provide for public participation in the permit process, in violation of 33 USC §§ 1251(e), 1342(a)(1), and 1342(j), and ECL 17-0805(1)(a)(ix). * * *

The General Permit at issue on this appeal is consistent with the scheme for general permits envisioned by the EPA, and is designed to meet the maximum extent practicable standard prescribed by 33 USC § 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii) and ECL 17-0808(3)(c). The General Permit requires entities seeking coverage to “develop, implement and enforce” a stormwater management plan designed to address pollutants of concern and “reduce the discharge of pollutants from the small MS4” to the maximum extent practicable, so as “to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the ECL and the Clean Water Act” (see General Permit at 14, 95). A stormwater management plan must, inter alia, identify and describe the chosen best management practices and include measurable goals for each such practice (see General Permit at 95). The General Permit provides applicants with resources, including examples of successful stormwater management plans, a “menu” of best management practices, and suggested measurable goals (see General Permit at 95).  Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council Inc New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 06090, 2nd Dept 9-10-14

 

, , , , , ,

County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, determined that the plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) had standing to bring a negligence/nuisance/trespass/products liability action against defendants alleging contamination of wells caused by chemicals (PCE and TCE).  However, the court determined the action was barred as untimely by CPLR 214-c.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained what the “two-injury” rule is in the context of a continuing wrong.  The court determined that CPLR 214-c was designed to eliminate the continuing-wrong statute of limitations calculation in contamination cases.  In addition, the court explained the difference between latent and patent injuries with respect to CPLR 214-c:

Generally, a plaintiff has standing to sue if it has suffered an injury in fact … in some way different from that of the public at large and within the zone of interests to be protected by relevant statutory and regulatory provisions … .

We reject the movants’ contention that the SCWA lacked standing to seek damages for injury to 115 wells where the PCE contamination level fell below the MCL (federal and state “maximum contamination level” for PCE). The MCL is only a regulatory standard which governs conduct in supplying water to the public. While the MCL may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred, the MCL does not set a bar below which an injury cannot have occurred … . Similarly, the MCL does not define whether an injury has occurred, since contamination below that level could result in some injury, such as increased monitoring costs … . It is undisputed that the SCWA has expended resources in its effort to address the widespread contamination, even at wells where the contamination has not risen to or exceeded the MCL. Thus, the SCWA has alleged that it has suffered an injury for which it may seek redress, irrespective of the level of contamination. * * *

CPLR 214-c was enacted in 1986 to ameliorate the effect of a line of cases which held that toxic tort claims accrued upon the impact or exposure to the substance, even though the resulting injury or illness did not manifest itself until some time later … . CPLR 214-c provides for a three-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property “caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property” (CPLR 214-c[2]). The three-year period is “computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-c[2]…). For the purposes of CPLR 214-c, “discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Suffolk County Water Auth v Dow Chem Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05420, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

, ,

Equitable Estoppel Against NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Not Available Under the Facts

The Third Department determined the doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied to a statute of limitations defense raised by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).  The petitioner’s president [Sage] alleged he was told by an employee of the DEC [Lynch] that he need not comply with the 30 day time limit for challenging the DEC’s approval of a Freshwater Wetlands permit:

It is axiomatic that the doctrine of equitable estoppel cannot generally be invoked against governmental agencies in the exercise of their governmental function … . However, estoppel may apply in certain “exceptional cases in which there has been a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or similar affirmative misconduct, along with reasonable reliance thereon” … .

Here, less than 30 days after the permit was issued, Sage spoke with Lynch regarding petitioner’s plans to challenge the permit. According to Sage, Lynch explained that he was not adequately familiar with the permit and needed to review the matter. Sage “believe[d]” that it was during this conversation that Lynch told him that petitioner did not need to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding within 30 days of the issuance of the permit because petitioner had four months to bring a challenge, which would give Lynch time to review it. Although Lynch acknowledged having spoken to Sage about the permit, he denied telling Sage that the applicable statute of limitations was four months or that the limitations period would be extended. Indeed, Lynch averred that he had no authority to waive or extend the applicable statute of limitations on behalf of DEC, and the statement that petitioner attributes to Lynch was, at best, akin to erroneous advice that does not rise to the level necessary to implicate the exception where estoppel may be invoked against a governmental agency… . Matter of Atlantic States Legal Found Inc v NYS Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 05384, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

,

Adirondack Park Agency Properly Approved the Construction of a Resort Within the Confines of the Park

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, the Third Department determined the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) properly approved the construction of a club and resort project which will include a ski area, an inn, single family residences, camps and a marina.  The court went through each of the required findings and found them supported by substantial evidence.  The court explained its review role as follows:

Judicial review of the APA’s determination, made after a hearing at which evidence was taken pursuant to law, is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [4]…). Substantial evidence does not require overwhelming evidence or even a preponderance of the evidence … . Rather, all that is required is “‘relevant proof [that] a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact'” … . Additionally, “[t]he fact that a different conclusion could have been reasonably reached is not sufficient ground to set aside the determination” … .

To the extent that petitioners argue that the APA’s determination was affected by errors of law (see CPLR 7803 [3]), this Court’s “review of these arguments, made in a CPLR article 78 proceeding following a hearing, is limited to whether the [APA] exceeded its authority, violated a controlling law or otherwise acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner” … . Matter of Protect the Adirondacks! Inc v Adirondack Park Agency, 2014 NY Slip Op 04992, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Petitioners Did Not Have Standing to Contest County’s Negative Declaration After a SEQRA Review

The Fourth Department determined petitioners did not have standing to contest the county’s negative declaration pursuant to a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review.  The action involved the county’s permitting the Monroe County Fair and Recreation Association, Inc. to operate a four-day agricultural festival on county land:

Where, as here, the proceeding does not involve a “zoning-related issue . . . , there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA challenge” based solely on a party’s proximity … . In such a situation, parties seeking to establish standing must establish that the injury of which they complain “falls within the zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected” …, and that they “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . Contrary to petitioners’ contention, we conclude that the court properly determined that the environmental effects relied on by each petitioner to establish his or her standing are no different in either kind or degree from that suffered by the general public … . We further conclude that the alleged environmentally related injuries are too speculative and conjectural to demonstrate an actual and specific injury-in-fact … . Thus, the court did not err in concluding that none of the petitioners has standing … . Matter of Kindred v Monroe County, 2014 NY Slip Op 05069, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

,

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

 

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