You are here: / Environmental Law
, ,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the plaintiff municipality breached its contract with defendant sewage-treatment company. The plaintiff municipality argued that, although there was competitive bidding under General Municipal Law 103 and 120-w, the contract was void because the bid specifications were improperly developed with the defendant and were designed to ensure defendant got the contract, but that argument was rejected by both Supreme Court and the Third Department:

… [P]laintiff provided nothing to contradict the proof that [use of defendant’s technology] served the public interest because it was safer, more reliable and less likely to generate troublesome odors than other technologies.

[D]efendant produced an affidavit from plaintiff’s then-mayor, who stated that the options for sludge treatment had been thoroughly investigated and that the type of equipment offered by defendant would further the public interest by stabilizing plaintiff’s sludge disposal costs, providing an environmentally sensitive means for that disposal and decreasing odors emanating from the WWTF [wastewater treatment facility] that might affect ongoing waterfront development. The then-mayor further averred that the bid documents were prepared by municipal employees and that the specifications included nothing of peculiar benefit to defendant. … Defendant’s president, a mechanical engineer, confirmed that point and averred that “[n]early any sludge drying pelletizing system on the market” could have satisfied the bid specifications. Plaintiff accordingly failed to meet its burden of showing that the 2004 agreement was void, and defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on claims relating to that agreement’s validity … . City of Kingston v Aslan Envtl. Servs., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00192, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM DRAWS HEAT FROM SOLAR ENERGY STORED IN THE GROUND, IT IS NOT A QUALIFIED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAX LAW FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A $5000 TAX CREDIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a heat pump system, although it draws heat from solar energy stored in the ground, is not a qualified solar energy system within the meaning of Tax Law 606 (g-1). Therefore, as the Tax Tribunal found, petitioners were not entitled to a $5000 tax credit for the heat pump system:

… [S]olar energy system equipment is defined as “an arrangement or combination of components utilizing solar radiation, which, when installed in a residence, produces energy designed to provide heating, cooling, hot water or electricity for use in such residence” … . Here, the Tribunal limited the applicability of the tax credit to those systems that “directly” utilize solar radiation, an interpretation which petitioners assert is too narrow, …

… [W]e do not agree with petitioners’ assertion that the plain language of the statute unambiguously includes ground source heat pump systems simply because they utilize solar energy … . As the record reveals, heat harvested by a ground source heat pump system is not, strictly speaking, “solar radiation” since it is being radiated from the ground after being absorbed by the crust. Thus, although a broad reading of the phrase “utilize[es] solar radiation” could certainly include the system at issue, an interpretation excluding indirect utilization of solar energy is not unreasonable. Further, we find that the fact that the system removes heat from indoor air during the warm summer months and moves it to the ground, thereby not utilizing solar radiation, presents another reason to exclude the system from the purview of the tax credit … . Matter of Suozzi v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00193, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

, ,

UPON LEARNING THE STATE, BY EFFECTIVELY MISLEADING THE COURT, OBTAINED A JUDGMENT DETERMINING IT OWNED LAND IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK, THE COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 in the interests of substantial justice because plaintiff (the State of New York) had misled the court in proceedings leading to the judgment that it owned land in the Adirondack Park:

Plaintiff argued at trial that, although it could not identify the specific instrument that gave it a superior claim to the parcel at issue, several instruments granted it title to most of Township 40 and that the parcel “was not included within the bounds of any exception” …  Plaintiff was aware that the success of this argument would threaten the claims of hundreds of individuals to land in Township 40, and misrepresented to Supreme Court that it would rely upon a judgment in this action to bring RPAPL article 15 actions against those individuals. Upon succeeding, plaintiff instead enforced the 2001 judgment against defendants alone … . It … became evident that plaintiff sought the 2001 judgment despite the doubts … regarding its ownership claims in Township 40 … . Plaintiff subjected defendants to selectively harsh treatment under a judgment about which it harbored doubts, in other words, and Supreme Court stated that it would not have granted the judgment had plaintiff taken the legal position it later adopted. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that these circumstances afforded sufficient reason to vacate the 2001 judgment in the interest of substantial justice … . State of New York v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-2-10

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NATURE PRESERVE DID NOT GIVE THEM STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN’S PURCHASE OF THE PRESERVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioners did not have standing to contest the negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) allowing the town’s purchase of land held by a nature conservancy:

It is well settled that standing to challenge an alleged SEQRA violation by a governmental entity requires a petitioner to demonstrate “that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . Importantly, “[p]etitioners must have more than generalized environmental concerns to satisfy that burden and, unlike . . . cases involving zoning issues, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA or other environmental challenge based on a party’s close proximity alone” … .

Here, petitioners claim of standing is based upon the fact that they own property directly adjacent to the nature preserve and have asserted concerns that the Town, in conducting its SEQRA review, failed to consider the impact of increased motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and/or the environmental effect that a newly proposed parking lot and hiking trail would have on the nature preserve. Initially, assuming, without deciding, that petitioners adequately established their ownership interest in the property directly adjacent to the nature preserve, their position as adjacent landowners does not automatically confer standing on them to challenge the Town Board’s negative declaration … . Moreover, petitioners’ asserted concerns fail to allege any unique or distinct injury that they will suffer as a result of the Town’s proposed land acquisition that is not generally applicable to the public at large … . Matter of Hohman v Town of Poestenkill, 2020 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

MEMBER OF LLC WHICH OWNED A MOBILE HOME PARK IS PERSONALLY LIABLE, PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICER DOCTRINE, FOR AN $800,000 PENALTY IMPOSED FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIRING SEWAGE-TREATMENT MEASURES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Burr, one of two members of a limited liability company, C & J, was properly held personally liable for the violation of an administrative order issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEP). C & J owned a mobile home park and the administrative order concerned the treatment of waste from the park. The penalty was more than $800,000.00:

Under Limited Liability Company Law § 609, a member of a limited liability company is generally not liable for the contractual obligations of the company. The 2008 order on consent, however, is not merely a contractual obligation. It is also an administrative order, the violation of which is subject to statutory enforcement (see ECL 71-1929). This Court has recognized that a responsible corporate officer may be held personally liable for violations of consent orders issued by DEC that implicate public health and safety … . Individual liability may be imposed where the corporate officer has the knowledge of and ability to prevent or remedy a violation that presents a public health hazard … . …

There can be little dispute that Burr was well aware of the ongoing sewage violations at the park, and, as managing member, he held a position of authority to address the problem. … [T]he 2008 consent order, which Burr signed on C & J’s behalf, expressly provided for stipulated penalties in the event that C & J “fail[ed] to strictly and timely comply.” The order further specified that it was binding on C & J and its officers. …

… [W]e conclude that Supreme Court did not err in holding Burr personally liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine. State of New York v C & J Enters., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00024, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

VENUE FOR THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING TO ANNUL A TOWN LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED A WILDLIFE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TOWN IS LOCATED PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW SECTION 66 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice DeJoseph, determined Supreme Court properly found that Orleans County, not Niagara County, was the correct venue for this hybrid Article 78/declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a Town of Shelby Local Law creating a wildlife refuge overlay district, and further seeking to annul the Town Board’s negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The legal analysis is too detailed to be fully summarized here:

The primary issue raised on this appeal involves the interplay between three statutory provisions concerning venue, i.e., CPLR 504 (2), CPLR 506 (b), and Town Law § 66 (1) and, ultimately, whether Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondents-defendants (respondents) to transfer venue of this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action from Niagara County to Orleans County. We conclude that the court properly transferred venue pursuant to Town Law § 66 (1). …

Town Law § 66 (1) provides that “[t]he place of trial of all actions and proceedings against a town or any of its officers or boards shall be the county in which the town is situated.”

We conclude that Town Law § 66 applies and, as such, the proper venue in the instant action is Orleans County rather than Niagara County. Matter of Zelazny Family Enters., LLC v Town of Shelby, 2019 NY Slip Op 09124, Fourth Dept 12-20-19

 

, , , ,

AN ATTORNEY, A PRINCIPAL IN THE CORPORATIONS OWNING SEVERAL BUILDINGS, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE IN THE “OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS” WITHOUT A LICENSE BECAUSE HE ADVERTISED HIS LAW PRACTICE IN SIGNS ON THE BUILDINGS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the corporations which owned the buildings were separate from the attorney, a principal in the corporations, who advertised his law office in signs on the buildings. Therefore the attorney was making space available for outdoor advertising to “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code regulating outdoor advertising. The code requires “outdoor advertising companies” engaged in the :outdoor advertising business” to be licensed. The attorney (Ciafone) was fined for outdoor advertising without a license:

Contrary to the position of the Appellate Division dissent, preserving the distinction between the corporate entities and Mr. Ciafone does not “penalize him for forming corporate entities to own the buildings for tax and liability purposes”… . Myriad statutes and regulations apply to corporations, but not natural persons; those are not “penalties” for creating a corporate legal entity, but consequences of choosing that form of ownership. The New York City Council could rationally conclude that a corporation engaged in the provision of advertising to others, even others who have an ownership interest in the corporation, should be subjected to greater financial disincentives for violating signage laws than natural persons who are advertising themselves. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08976, CtApp 12-17-19

 

,

PETITIONERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE COUNTY IN THIS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CASE; THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE THREE-MONTH DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file late notices of claim should have been granted. The claims arise from groundwater contamination linked to chemicals (PFOS and PFOA) used at a county airport. The Second Department noted that the county had timely notice of the essential facts of the claims, the petition was brought three months after the notices of claim were due, and the county did not demonstrate and prejudice resulting from the delay:

… [T]he County’s alleged negligent ownership and operation of the Gabreski Airport site, resulting in contamination of the petitioners’ water supply with toxic chemicals, constitute the essential facts of the claims, which are common to all the petitioners and were made known to the County by the prior notices of claim … .

Inasmuch as the County acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioners’ claims, the petitioners made an initial showing that the County was not prejudiced by their delay in serving the notices of claim … . Moreover, the petitioners sought leave to serve late notices of claim only a little more than three months after the statutory period had expired … . In opposition, the County failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing that the County was not prejudiced by their delay with any particularized evidence … . The County did no more than assert that the petitioners failed to meet their burden to show that the late notice would not substantially prejudice the County … .

“A petitioner’s lack of a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim is not necessarily fatal when weighed against other relevant factors” … .  While the petitioners’ assertions that they were not aware of the County’s involvement in the cause of the incident does not constitute a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a timely notice of claim, the absence of a reasonable excuse “is not in and of itself fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice” … . Matter of Brooks v County of Suffolk, 2019 NY Slip Op 08561, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, , , ,

FOUR CLASSES PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUITS BASED UPON THE CONTAMINATION OF AIR, WATER, REAL PROPERTY AND PEOPLE WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that Supreme Court properly certified four classes bring class action suits against a manufacturer alleging the contamination of water, air, real property and people with toxic chemicals, PFOA and PFOS:

Plaintiffs, residents of the Town, commenced this action as a proposed class action, alleging that defendant’s use and improper disposal of PFOA and PFOS caused personal injury and property damage. In their complaint, plaintiffs proposed four classes: (1) a public water property damage class; (2) a private well water property damage class; (3) a private well nuisance class; and (4) a PFOA invasion injury class. Generally, the putative class members were individuals who owned or leased property in the Town or who ingested contaminated municipal or well water or inhaled PFOA or PFOS particulates in the Town and had demonstrable evidence of elevated levels of the chemical in their blood system. * * *

We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that, in addition to those questions common to the property classes, the answers to certain additional common questions will be applicable to all members of the invasion injury class, for example: (1) whether medical monitoring is an available remedy; (2) the extent of the health hazard presented by exposure to PFOA; and (3) whether the members of the class are at significant increased risk for disease based on the excess accumulation of PFOA in their bodies. Although defendant contends that there are myriad factual questions that are not common to the class, we do not agree that those predominate. Importantly, this is not a case where there is an issue of fact regarding exposure — rather, each class member must establish exposure and accumulation through blood work … . Burdick v Tonoga, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08461, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the negative declaration issued by the town under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because the sewer construction approved by the town was 15 miles from plaintiff’s property. The Third Department further found that plaintiff’s actions should have been brought as an Article 78 and therefore was time-barred, and his First Amendment arguments, alleging the town should have responded to his “Petition for the Redress of Grievances Regarding the Proposed [sewer district].” were meritless:

Plaintiff does not have standing to raise the SEQRA claims. “In land use matters especially, [the Court of Appeals] ha[s] long imposed the limitation that the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that [he or she] would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large [and] [t]his requirement applies whether the challenge to governmental action is based on a SEQRA violation, or other grounds” … .Plaintiff does not reside in the Town. Although his homestead apparently straddles the Town line such that 1.2 acres of his land is situated in the Town, his property is located outside of — and approximately 15 miles away from — the sewer district. Moreover, plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer, by itself, does not grant him standing to challenge the establishment of the sewer district … . …

Plaintiff’s SEQRA challenge is also time-barred. Regardless of how a plaintiff may label or style his or her claim, courts must look to the core of the underlying claim and the relief sought and, if the claim could have been properly addressed in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, a four-month statute of limitations will apply … . * * *

… [T]he First Amendment does not “guarantee[] a citizen’s right to receive a government response to or official consideration of a petition for redress of grievances” … . Schulz v Town Bd. of the Town of Queensbury, 2019 NY Slip Op 07667, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

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