You are here: / Environmental Law

PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW BY FILLING BELOW THE HIGH WATER MARK OF A POND; THE POND MET THE DEFINITION OF ‘NAVIGABLE WATERS’ AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioners had violated the Environmental Conservation Law by filling below the high water mark of a pond and were properly fined $10,000. With respect to whether the pond constituted “navigable waters” (to which the relevant statute applies) the court explained:

… “[N]o person . . . shall excavate or place fill below the mean high water level in any of the navigable waters of the state . . . without a permit” (ECL 15-0505 [1]). Petitioners argue that the evidence failed to show that South Long Pond was a navigable water. We disagree. Under the common law, a water is navigable in fact if it provides “practical utility to the public as a means for transportation” … . Furthermore, “while the purpose or type of use remains important, of paramount concern is the capacity of the [water] for transport, whether for trade or travel” … . Petitioners’ neighbor testified at the hearing that she observed other individuals use boats or canoes on South Long Pond and that she had personally accessed South Long Pond by boat from Dyken Pond. A biologist with respondent’s Bureau of Fisheries likewise testified that he was able to navigate between South Long Pond and Dyken Pond by boat and that there was a boat launch on Dyken Pond. He further testified that navigable waters do not include those waters that are “surrounded by land [and] held in a single private ownership at every point in their total area.” Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination that South Long Pond was a navigable water To that end, petitioners’ related claim that respondent lacked subject matter jurisdiction because South Long Pond was not a navigable water is without merit. Matter of Stasack v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2019 NY Slip Op 07669, Third Dept 10-23-19

 

,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) RULING ALLOWING SNOWMOBILES TO USE A ROADWAY IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions (three judges) held that the determination by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to allow snowmobiles to use an existing roadway in the Adirondack Park was not irrational and should stand:

Our state’s constitutional commitment to conservation for more than a century has ensured the continued protection of the region’s iconic landscapes while providing extraordinary outdoor recreational experiences to citizens of this state and tourists from around the world. Agencies charged with managing park property must balance, within applicable constitutional, statutory and regulatory constraints, the preeminent interest in maintaining the character of pristine vistas with ensuring appropriate access to remote areas for visitors of varied interests and physical abilities. In this appeal, we review a challenge brought by environmental groups to a determination of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) made in consultation with the Adirondack Park Agency (“APA”) that, among other things, permits seasonal snowmobile use on an existing roadway on property recently acquired by the State and added to the Adirondack Forest Preserve. Because we are unpersuaded by petitioners’ contention that the determination either contravenes controlling motor vehicle use restrictions in the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (“Master Plan”) and Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act (ECL 15-2701 et seq. [“Rivers Act”]) or is otherwise irrational, we affirm the challenged portion of the Appellate Division order. Matter of Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 2019 NY Slip Op 07520, CtApp 10-22-19

 

, , , ,

ACTION AGAINST GAS COMPANY FOR CONTAMINATION OF REAL PROPERTY ACCRUED WHEN INJURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND WAS TIME BARRED; ACTION FOR NUISANCE RELATING TO REMEDIATION EFFORTS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION AND WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the causes of action against a gas company to recover damages for contamination of real property were time-barred, but the nuisance actions stemming from remediation efforts were not time-barred:

“Generally, an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property must be commenced within three years of the injury” … . “[T]he three year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances,” however, “shall be 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 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'” … .  …

… [T]he defendants here demonstrated that they undertook extensive efforts beginning in 1999 to inform and engage with property owners potentially affected by the contamination and remediation by conducting, among other things, door-to-door canvassing, direct mailings of newsletters and fact sheets, numerous public meetings, and highly visible and disruptive remediation work. The defendants also inspected the subject property twice in 2005 to determine whether certain remediation work between those inspections caused any damage, and mailed the results of their inspections to the plaintiff in 2006. … The defendants … established, prima facie, that the plaintiff should have discovered, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the primary condition upon which its exposure-related claims were based prior to January 22, 2007 … . …

We disagree, however, with the Supreme Court’s determination that the causes of action to recover damages for public and private nuisance allegedly arising from the defendants’ remediation work were time-barred … . These causes of action are subject to the limitations period in CPLR 214(4) rather than CPLR 214-c(2) because they do not seek “to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure” … .  Here, the papers submitted in support of the defendants’ motion demonstrated that there was no dispute that the defendants conducted remediation work in close proximity to the subject property shortly after new tenants signed a lease to occupy the space in 2008 … . Onder Realty, Inc. v Keyspan Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07406, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

TRIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE RULING THAT TWO FACIALLY AMBIGUOUS RELEASES EXECUTED BY PRIOR OWNER OF THE GAS STATION APPLIED TO THE CONTAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY BY LEAKED GASOLINE; THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE GAS STATION COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RECOVER THE CLEANUP COSTS FROM THE DEFENDANT GASOLINE SUPPLIER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial evidence supported the ruling that two facially ambiguous releases executed by the (a gasoline supplier) and the former owner of the gas station precluded an action by plaintiff, the current owner of the gas station, to recover from defendant plaintiff’s expenditures for the cleanup of leaked gasoline.:

Where a releasee asserts a lack of liability based upon a general release, the burden of proof is on the releasor to show that “the general language of the release, valid on its face and properly executed, is to be limited because of a mutual mistake, or otherwise does not represent the intent of the parties” … . ” [I]t is not a prerequisite to the enforceability of a release that the releasor be subjectively aware of the precise claim he or she is releasing'” … . Thus, at a trial encompassing an assertion by a defendant that it is not liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiff due to a general release that contains equivocal language, rendering it ambiguous on its face, the plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to establish that the releases were not intended to deprive him or her of the claimed damages … .

Here, although the releases were ambiguous on their faces as to whether they encompassed unknown claims for environmental contamination, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence at the trial sufficient to support a finding that they did not, whereas the defendant adduced evidence showing that the releases were intended to be general releases. Burnside 711, LLC v Amerada Hess Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06165, Second Dept 8-21-19

 

,

THE CONSTRUCTION OF 27 MILES OF SNOWMOBILE TRAILS IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK WOULD VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION’S PROHIBITION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF TIMBER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, over a dissent, determined that the proposed construction of 27 miles of snowmobile trails in the Adirondack Park required the removal of timber and therefore would violate the New York State Constitution:

NY Constitution, article XIV, § 1 states, in relevant part, that “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the [F]orest [P]reserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.” * * *

Although this project did not involve clear-cutting or the removal of a large swath of trees … , but instead necessitated destruction of narrow corridors of trees for many miles, we need to consider the entire project when determining its effects. The destruction of a substantial number of trees can be problematic whether those trees were together or spread out along one or more portions of the Forest Preserve. For example, the construction of these trails required the destruction, on average per mile, of over 200 trees at least three inches DBH and approximately 925 trees of all sizes. It would be anomalous to conclude that destroying 925 trees per mile of trails, or approximately 25,000 trees in total, does not constitute the destruction of timber “to a substantial extent” or “to any material degree” … . Thus, the construction of the Class II trails resulted in, or would result in, an unconstitutional destruction of timber in the Forest Preserve. Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2019 NY Slip Op 05363, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the  public trust doctrine applied to town easements such that the easements could not be conveyed to a developer without legislative approval. The court further held that the Open Meetings Law was not violated by posting relevant documents only seven hours before the town meeting:

… “[A] parcel of property may become a park by express provisions in a deed . . . or by implied acts, such as continued use [by the municipality] [*2]of the parcel as a park” … . “A party seeking to establish . . . an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that (1) [t]he acts and declarations of the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his [or her] land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use” … .

… [P]etitioner alleged in its petition-complaint that the Town Easements were part of the “Auburn Trail linear park” and that they were parkland for purposes of the public trust doctrine. In support of that part of each motion seeking to dismiss the second cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), respondents submitted the conveyances that created the Town Easements. Inasmuch as those instruments provided that the Town Easements were to be used as a “pedestrian pathway” for “public use” and required the Town to restore the easement property to “a park like condition” after construction of the pedestrian pathway, respondents’ own documentary evidence creates issues of fact whether there was an express or implied dedication of the Town Easements subject to the public trust doctrine. Thus, respondents failed to meet their burden of submitting documentary evidence that conclusively refuted petitioner’s allegations … . In addition, deeming the material allegations of the petition-complaint to be true, we conclude that “the allegations in the second cause of action presented a justiciable controversy sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment,” and thus respondents were not entitled to dismissal of that cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) … . Matter of Clover/Allen’s Cr. Neighborhood Assn. LLC v M&F, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05280, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , , ,

CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the action alleging negligence and inverse condemnation stemming from toxic contamination of the vicinity of a defunct factory was properly dismissed because the allegations did not specify when the alleged injuries occurred:

The State of New York is sovereign and has consented to be sued only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 8 …). Among those requirements is the claimant’s duty to allege “the time when [the] claim arose” … . The requirements of section 11 (b) are jurisdictional in nature … , and the failure to satisfy them mandates dismissal of the claim without regard to whether the State was prejudiced … or had access to the requisite information from its own records … . As the Court of Appeals has explained, the State is not required “to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege” … . …

Here, although claimants adequately specified when defendant’s negligent acts allegedly occurred, they failed to supply any dates or ranges of dates regarding their alleged injuries, such as when they were exposed to toxins, when they developed symptoms, when they sought treatment, or when they were diagnosed with an illness. Instead, claimants alleged only the dates of their residence in Geneva and the dates when news of the contamination became public. Claimants’ allegations are insufficient to enable defendant to adequately investigate the claims in order to ascertain its liability, if any. Given claimants’ failure to provide any dates regarding their alleged injuries, defendant could not realistically differentiate between those injuries attributable to toxic exposure and those injuries attributable to other causes. We therefore conclude that claimants failed to adequately plead when the claims arose for purposes of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Consequently, the court properly dismissed the claims as jurisdictionally defective … . Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 05271, Fourth Dept 6-28-19

 

, , , ,

HARDSHIP WAIVER TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE CORE PRESERVATION AREA OF THE LONG ISLAND CENTRAL PINES BARRENS PROPERLY DENIED, ACCOMPANYING ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED, SUA SPONTE, BY THE JUDGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the Article 78 petition for a hardship waiver to allow petitioner to build a single family residence on property within the core preservation area of the Long Island Central Pines Barrens was properly denied. However, the accompanying declaratory judgment action (alleging the denial of the waiver was an unconstitutional taking) should not have been summarily dismissed by the judge absent a motion for that relief:

… [C]ontrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Commission’s determination to deny its application for an extraordinary hardship waiver had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. In particular, the Commission rationally found, inter alia, that the alleged hardship was not the result of any unique circumstances peculiar to the subject property (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][i] …) and, in any event, that the alleged hardship was self-created (see ECL 57-0121[10][a][ii], [iii] …). The Commission also rationally found that the application did not satisfy the requirements of ECL 57-0121(10)(c) and reasonably distinguished the application from prior applications for which it granted an extraordinary hardship waiver … . …

“In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand” … . “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”… . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Armand Gustave, LLC v Pavacic, 2019 NY Slip Op 05125, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

, ,

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the summary judgment motions brought by three prior insurers of the property contaminated by oil were properly granted. The three insurers, Arch, AAIC and NSC, were third-party defendants in an action for indemnification brought by the current insurer of the property, Utica Mutual. The Arch policy had a specific exclusion of coverage for the contaminant. Arch’s failure to comply with the filing requirement of Insurance Law 2307 did not void the exclusion because there was no evidence Arch violated any regulations or statutes. The actions against AAIC and NSC were properly dismissed because notification of the potential contamination claim by Utica was not made for three years after Utica was aware of the contamination:

… [The] evidence established that the petroleum cleanup and removal costs sought to be recovered by plaintiff arose out of, or were the result of, MTBE contamination at both the spill site and the Honeoye Municipal District Well and, thus, satisfied Arch’s prima facie burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint fell completely within the MTBE exclusion … . …

… Insurance Law § 2307 … states that “no policy form shall be delivered or issued for delivery unless it has been filed with the superintendent [of financial services] and either he [or she] has approved it, or [30] days have elapsed and he [or she] has not disapproved it as misleading or violative of public policy” … . However, as Supreme Court correctly noted, the failure to file under Insurance Law § 2307 “does not, by itself, void the policy clause . . .[; rather,] such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations” … . …

… Utica Mutual failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether it was justifiably ignorant of AAIC’s and NSC’s prior insurance coverage. Indeed, despite having access to Kirkwood and Kirkwood’s records immediately after learning of the contamination and its purported cause, Utica Mutual produced no evidence to show that it made any effort to discover AAIC’s and NSC’s existence before July 2010, when Utica Mutual’s counsel sent a letter to Kirkwood’s former insurance broker seeking information regarding Kirkwood’s prior insurers. Utica Mutual provided no explanation as to why it waited until July 2010 to inquire about prior insurers. State of New York v Flora, 2019 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

, ,

THE TOWN RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER LINE ALONG A NATURE TRAIL WAS ANNULLED BY THE 4TH DEPARTMENT, THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED ‘HARD LOOK’ AT THE EFFECTS OF THE SEWER-LINE CONSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN RARE ANIMAL AND PLANT SPECIES, AS WELL AS THE EFFECTS UPON SURFACE WATERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department annulled the determination allowing an easement to install a sewer line along a nature trail. The Fourth Department held that the Town Board did not take the required “hard look” (required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA]) at the effect of the sewer line on certain endangered and rare animal and plant species, as well as the effects on surface water:

… [T]he New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) made respondent aware that its database indicated the presence of certain endangered, threatened, or rare animal and plant species on the project site. Those species included the northern long-eared bat, the imperial moth, and the northern bog violet. In addition, the database indicated the presence of inland salt marsh. The DEC recommended that respondent conduct a survey of the professional literature and determine whether the project site contains habitats favorable to such species and, if so, that respondent conduct a field survey to determine whether the species are present. The DEC instructed that, if respondent determined that such species are present, modifications should be considered to minimize impact. There is no indication that respondent conducted such a survey. [With the exception of the Indiana bat. the species’] presence was merely noted…, along with the bare conclusion that there would be no significant impact on those species. …

[R]espondent merely set forth general practices for avoiding significant adverse impacts on surface water and stream corridors without providing a reasoned elaboration that, by implementing such practices in this particular project, respondent would successfully avoid any significant adverse impacts on surface water. Matter of Frank J. Ludovico Sculpture Trail Corp. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 04621, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

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