106 Fulton Associates v. City of New York Environmental Control Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

106 Fulton Associates v. City of New York Environmental Control Board

214 A.D.2d 440, 625 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 440 (106 Fulton Associates v. City of New York Environmental Control Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

106 Fulton Associates v. City of New York Environmental Control Board, 214 A.D.2d 440, 625 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board dated June 30, 1993, finding that petitioner improperly handled and stored waste containing asbestos and imposing fines against it in the amount of $54,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 23, 1994 is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination was provided by, inter alia, the testimony of Michael Chang and Daniel Borgenstein, who described the condition of the premises in the course of removing the waste from the area, Joseph Savin, who first encountered the improperly disposed asbestos in trash bags recovered near petitioner’s building, and Sergeant McMahon of the Environmental Unit of the Sanitation Department, who took samples of debris from the affected area that tested positive for asbestos (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Given the potential health risks associated with violations of this kind, the penalty was not so disproportionate to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (supra). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination of respondent New York City Environmental Control Board dated June 30, 1993, finding that petitioner improperly handled and stored waste containing asbestos and imposing fines against it in the amount of $54,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered May 23, 1994 is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements.

Substantial evidence supporting respondent’s determination was provided by, inter alia, the testimony of Michael Chang and Daniel Borgenstein, who described the condition of the premises in the course of removing the waste from the area, Joseph Savin, who first encountered the improperly disposed asbestos in trash bags recovered near petitioner’s building, and Sergeant McMahon of the Environmental Unit of the Sanitation Department, who took samples of debris from the affected area that tested positive for asbestos (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). Given the potential health risks associated with violations of this kind, the penalty was not so disproportionate to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (supra). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 440, 625 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/106-fulton-associates-v-city-of-new-york-environmental-control-board-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack