You are here: / Environmental Law
,

Bond Resolution for Upgrades to School District Buildings Does Not Constitute a School-District Debt—Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge School District’s Environmental Impact Determination

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Spain, the Third Department determined that a bond resolution for the upgrading of school district buildings did not violate the school district’s constitutional and statutory debt limit and the petitioner did not have standing to challenge the school district’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) finding that the upgrading did not have a negative environmental impact.  The court held the bonds need not be included in the debt until they are sold, i.e., until the bonds are actually issued:

…[F]or purposes of the debt limit, “contract indebtedness” and “existing indebtedness” include only bonds that have been actually issued – i.e., sold – at that time, and exclude the value of bonds that have merely been authorized for future issuance. * *

…[P]etitioner lacks standing to challenge the School District’s SEQRA determination and process … .  Standing, even to raise environmental challenges, is not automatic and must be alleged and, when disputed, proven …; this petitioner failed to do.  To the extent that petitioner relies on the proximity of his property to one of the buildings scheduled for repurposing … to raise an inference of injury sufficient to confer standing, under our decisional law a distance of over 1,000 feet “is not close enough to give rise to the presumption that the neighbor is or will be adversely affected by the proposed project” … .  Further, petitioner failed to alleged or identify any actual injury or direct harm that he will suffer, environmental or otherwise, if the facilities project is undertaken that is distinct from the harm experienced by the general public… . Matter of O’Brien v NYS Commissioner of Education, 515382, 3rd Dept 11-7-13

 

, , ,

Construction of Dock Could Not Be Regulated by Town—Land Under Navigable Waters Owned by State

The Third Department determined that the Lake George Town Planning Board did not have jurisdiction to grant or deny petitioner’s application to build a dock in Lake George because the state, not the town, owned the land under navigable waters:

When the state owns land under navigable waters in its sovereign capacity, its exclusive authority preempts local land use laws and extends beyond the regulation of navigation “to every form of regulation in the public interest.”… .  The state holds title to the lands under Lake George in its sovereign capacity  and, thus, has sole jurisdiction over construction in the lake’s navigable waters provided it has not delegated this authority to a local government … .

“[A]bsent the delegations in Navigation Law § 46-a allowing local municipalities to regulate the manner of construction and location of structures in waters owned by the [s]tate in its sovereign capacity, municipalities bordering or encompassing such waters . . . have no authority to issue such regulations”… . The Hart Family v Town of Lake George, 515142, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

,

Question of Fact Whether General Releases Encompassed Environmental Damage from Leaking Fuel Tank

The Second Department determined that there was a question whether general releases contemplated damages related to environmental contamination and the action should not have been dismissed based on the releases. The action concerned gasoline which had leaked into the ground when defendant had leased the plaintiff’s property.  The court explained:

Generally, a valid release completely bars an action on a claim that is the subject of the release … . Principles of contract law govern the interpretation of a release; “a release that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms'” … . Nonetheless, as the Court of Appeals has recognized with respect to a general release, “[t]here is little doubt . . . that its interpretation and limitation by the parol evidence rule are subject to special rules. These rules are based on a realistic recognition that releases contain standardized, even ritualistic, language and are given in circumstances where the parties are sometimes looking no further than the precise matter in dispute that is being settled. Thus, while it has been held that an unreformed general release will be given its full literal effect where it is directly or circumstantially evident that the purpose is to achieve a truly general settlement …, the cases are many in which the release has been avoided with respect to uncontemplated transactions despite the generality of the language in the release form” … .

Further, “[t]he meaning and extent of coverage of a release necessarily depend, as in the case of contracts generally, upon the controversy being settled and upon the purpose for which the release was actually given'” … . A general release may not be construed to cover matters that the parties “did not desire or intend to dispose of” … .

Here, the two releases at issue, whether construed together or separately, are ambiguous regarding whether the parties intended that they cover unknown claims for environmental contamination… .  Burnside 711 LLC v Amerada Hess Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05869, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

,

Criteria for Review of Planning Board’s SEQRA Determination and Zoning Board’s Granting a Variance

In upholding the approval of a site plan, the Third Department determined the planning board met the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and zoning board properly granted a height variance. In explaining the criteria for both reviews, the Third Department wrote:

“‘Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether 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’….   “While judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to ‘weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives'”….  The lead agency’s determination will only be annulled if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported  by  the evidence (see CPLR  7803  [3];…).     * * *

The [zoning board’s] determination to grant the variance is also valid.  In determining whether to grant a variance, the local zoning board must “‘engage in a balancing test, weighing the proposed  benefit to [the applicant] against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as well as consider the five statutory factors enumerated in Town Law § 267-b (3)'”….  “Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and  judicial review is limited to determinating whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion”….  Matter of Schaller, 515824, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

,

Finding that No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Needed for Proposed Wind Turbines Reinstated; But Denial of Special Use Permit Upheld

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s annulment of a negative declaration with respect to the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed wind turbine installation, but upheld Supreme Court’s denial of a special use permit based on violations of the Town Law’s public hearing and notice requirements (among other grounds).  In describing the review standards for the respondent planning board’s determination an EIS was not required, the Third Department wrote:

….[W]e begin our analysis by noting that an environmental impact statement (hereinafter EIS) is required “‘on any action . . . which may have a significant effect on the environment'”….   A  type I action, such as the project here, “carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on  the environment” (6  NYCRR  617.4 [a] [1];…).   However,  when  a lead agency  “‘determine[s] either that there will be no adverse environmental impacts or that the identified adverse environmental impacts will not be significant,'” it may  issue a negative declaration and, in such instance, no  EIS is required…. “Although the threshold triggering an EIS is relatively low”…, judicial review of a negative declaration is limited to whether “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”….  In this regard, “[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decision making and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence”…. Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Board, et al, 515528, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine 

The Third Department, in reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of privity precluded the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Northrop owned a gas station which was a designated spill site (gasoline). The Department of Environmental Conservation spent about $125,000 cleaning it up. Northrop sought payment for the clean-up from its insurance carrier (the defendant here). In a prior declaratory judgment proceeding Supreme Court determined the policy did not cover petroleum contamination. Then the state, the plaintiff here, started an action against the defendant insurance company under Navigation Law 190 seeking reimbursement of the clean-up expenses.  Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the prior declaratory judgment finding the insurance policy did not cover the clean-up expense).  In reversing, finding collateral estoppel should not have been invoked because Northrop and the state were not in privity, the Third Department wrote:

Plaintiff is the entity that has undertaken the cleanup and now seeks reimbursement for monies expended. Thus, plaintiff has a right of indemnification against Northport to recoup these costs …, establishing an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship. Plaintiff’s right of indemnification,  however, is independent of Northport’s contractual right to have its insurance carrier, defendant, cover these costs under the terms of the liability insurance  policy. Moreover, Navigation Law § 190 authorizes plaintiff to commence a direct action against defendant, and this right is independent of plaintiff’s right of indemnification against Northport. Given that plaintiff’s rights are not conditioned upon and do not derive from Northport’s, the existence of an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship between Northport and plaintiff does not establish privity between these parties.  State of New York v Zurich American Insurance Company, 514916, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

, ,

Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department held that a town zoning ordinance which banned “all activities which related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum,” passed in response to concern over “hydrofracking,”  was not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) (ECL 23-0301, et seq).  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the legislative history of the preemption language in the OGMSL, as well as the concepts of express, implied and conflict preemption. Norse Energy Corp, USA v Town of Dryden, et al, 515227, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

For identical reasons, a similar ordinance enacted by the Town of Middlefield was held valid by the Third Department.  Cooperstown Holstein Corp v Town of Middlefield, 515498, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, , ,

The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​

The Third Department determined there were two equally plausible interpretations of the term “sellers” as used in the contract, rendering the contract ambiguous.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint prior to discovery was properly denied. In addition, the Third Department determined that the term “release” (re: hazardous substances) did not extend to the migration of hazardous substances to neighboring properties under ground:

…[The provision] requires  indemnification  for environmental  claims  related  to, among other things, a “Release” of hazardous substances “at locations other than [500 Beech].” “Release”  is defined  to include  “any  spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring,  emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, dumping  or disposing of any Hazardous  Material  into  the  environment.” In its Canadian action, the neighbor alleged that contaminants – which would be classified as “Hazardous Materials” under the agreement – in the ground  at 500 Beech migrated into the soil and  groundwater at 606 Beech. There is no allegation that hazardous substances were spilled, leaked or otherwise disposed of directly onto the property at 606 Beech. Rather, the allegation is that the flow of underground water carried those substances from 500 Beech, where they had been spilled or leaked, to the neighboring property. Although the hazardous substances eventually wound up at 606 Beech, there is no support for an allegation that the “Release” of those substances occurred at a location other than 500 Beech. Vectron International, Inc, v Corning Oak Holding, Inc, 515408, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, ,

“Professional” Standard of Care Can Be Required Based Solely on Nature of Services Provided

The First Department noted that a “professional” standard of care could be required of a party solely by virtue of the nature of services rendered:

The court properly found that Impact had a professional duty independent of the parties’ agreements. Although Impact, an environmental consultant, was not subject to licensing requirements, public policy requires that it should be held to a “professional” standard of care, given the nature of its services … . Indeed, “[p]rofessionals . . . may be subject to tort liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, irrespective of their contractual duties” … .  Southern Wine & Spirits of Am, Inc v Impact Envtl Eng’g, PLLC, 2013 NY Slip Op o2i46, 9651, 650083/10, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

, , ,

Owner/Officer of Company Can Be Personally Liable for Toxic Emissions Released by Company.

Plaintiffs brought an action for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by toxic emissions released by defendant Tonawanda Coke Corporation.  An owner and officer of Tonawanda Coke (Crane) moved to dismiss the cause of action suing him in an individual capacity.  In affirming the denial of that motion, the Fourth Department wrote:

Although “[a] corporate officer is not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because of his official relationship[,]” that officer will be held liable if it is established “that the officer was a participant in the wrongful conduct” … .Plaintiffs alleged in the first amended complaint that Crane was or should have been aware of the relevant environmental regulations, was ultimately responsible for reporting benzene emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency, and personally supervised and exercised control over Tonawanda Coke’s operations … .Thus, plaintiffs have alleged that Crane actively participated in the wrongful conduct by approving the policies that allegedly caused the environmental contamination … .   Abbot v Tonawanda Coke Corporation, et al, 155, CA 12-01384, Fourth Dept. 3-15-13

 

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