Alberti v. Eastman Kodak Co.

204 A.D.2d 1022, 612 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 27, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1022 (Alberti v. Eastman Kodak Co.) 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
Alberti v. Eastman Kodak Co., 204 A.D.2d 1022, 612 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. The allegation that defendant violated 6 NYCRR 211.2 is a sufficient predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Ruotolo v State of New York, 83 NY2d 248; Phalen v Kane, 192 AD2d 186; Costantini v Benedetto, 190 AD2d 888). We decline to adopt the reasoning of Supreme Court in Ramos v Doesn’t Matter Realty Corp. (153 Mise 2d 80) that a statute or regulation that merely codifies a common-law duty cannot serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In any event, 6 NYCRR 211.2 is not a mere codification of common-law nuisance.

We reject defendant’s further argument that 6 NYCRR [1023]*1023211.2 is too vague to provide the basis for a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Delford Indus. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 126 Misc 2d 355). Defendant’s remaining argument, that the Air Pollution Control Act and its corresponding regulations do not create a private right of action, is raised for the first time on appeal. Thus, it is not preserved for review (see, Matter of Ouimet v Ouimet, 186 AD2d 1002; MacMaster v Sardina, 182 AD2d 1132, 1133). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Salahuddin v. Craver
2018 NY Slip Op 5429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Unifirst Corp. v. Town of Hamburg
219 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
St. Jacques v. City of New York
215 A.D.2d 75 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Hayes v. City of New York
169 Misc. 2d 170 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 A.D.2d 1022, 612 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberti-v-eastman-kodak-co-nyappdiv-1994.