Glanville v. Lehman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glanville v. Lehman

142 A.D.2d 1000, 530 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15051

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.2d 1000 (Glanville v. Lehman) 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

Glanville v. Lehman, 142 A.D.2d 1000, 530 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for a judgment declaring 9 NYCRR 375.1 (s) to be invalid, plaintiff appeals from an order which denied his motion for summary judgment. We modify by declaring the regulation to be valid and otherwise affirm. The regulation, which prohibits the use of State reservations and parklands abutting the lower Niagara River for the purpose of navigating the rapids, was properly promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to the delegation of authority contained in PRHPL 3.09 (5). The regulation was adopted in "substantial compliance” with the provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [2] [b] [1]; [7]). Finally, the regulation is a rational response to the danger to human life inherent in attempts to negotiate the rapids of the lower Niagara River, the Commissioner’s lack of resources to assess the qualifications of boaters, the potential for imposition of liability against the State if the permit system were maintained, and the need for costly and hazardous rescue attempts in the event of a boating mishap.

We have considered the other contentions raised by plaintiff and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.— declaratory judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for a judgment declaring 9 NYCRR 375.1 (s) to be invalid, plaintiff appeals from an order which denied his motion for summary judgment. We modify by declaring the regulation to be valid and otherwise affirm. The regulation, which prohibits the use of State reservations and parklands abutting the lower Niagara River for the purpose of navigating the rapids, was properly promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to the delegation of authority contained in PRHPL 3.09 (5). The regulation was adopted in "substantial compliance” with the provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 202 [2] [b] [1]; [7]). Finally, the regulation is a rational response to the danger to human life inherent in attempts to negotiate the rapids of the lower Niagara River, the Commissioner’s lack of resources to assess the qualifications of boaters, the potential for imposition of liability against the State if the permit system were maintained, and the need for costly and hazardous rescue attempts in the event of a boating mishap.

We have considered the other contentions raised by plaintiff and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J.— declaratory judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 1000, 530 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glanville-v-lehman-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack