Jack's Insulation Contracting Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jack's Insulation Contracting Corp. v. City of New York

223 A.D.2d 365, 636 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 365 (Jack's Insulation Contracting Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Jack's Insulation Contracting Corp. v. City of New York, 223 A.D.2d 365, 636 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent Environmental Control Board dated March 16, 1994, finding that petitioners [366]*366caused or permitted the presentation for disposal of asbestos containing waste that was not wetted down in a manner sufficient to prevent all visible emissions of asbestos dust into the air, and was contained in bags that had tears, in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-117.1 (b) (1) and (2), and imposing fines of $16,000 each against petitioner Jack’s Insulation Contracting Corp., who removed the asbestos, and petitioner P & F Trucking, Inc., who transported the asbestos to the disposal site, is 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 [Edith Miller, J.], entered November 4, 1994), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioners’ argument that the testimony of respondents’ witnesses reveals gaps in their work procedures suggesting that they confused petitioners’ bags of waste with those left by someone else at the disposal site raised an issue of credibility that is to be resolved by the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). Once the credibility of respondents’ witnesses is accepted, the determination is clearly supported by substantial evidence. We have considered petitioners’ argument that the penalties were unlawful or an abuse of discretion and find it to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Determination of the respondent Environmental Control Board dated March 16, 1994, finding that petitioners [366]*366caused or permitted the presentation for disposal of asbestos containing waste that was not wetted down in a manner sufficient to prevent all visible emissions of asbestos dust into the air, and was contained in bags that had tears, in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-117.1 (b) (1) and (2), and imposing fines of $16,000 each against petitioner Jack’s Insulation Contracting Corp., who removed the asbestos, and petitioner P & F Trucking, Inc., who transported the asbestos to the disposal site, is 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 [Edith Miller, J.], entered November 4, 1994), dismissed, without costs.

Petitioners’ argument that the testimony of respondents’ witnesses reveals gaps in their work procedures suggesting that they confused petitioners’ bags of waste with those left by someone else at the disposal site raised an issue of credibility that is to be resolved by the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). Once the credibility of respondents’ witnesses is accepted, the determination is clearly supported by substantial evidence. We have considered petitioners’ argument that the penalties were unlawful or an abuse of discretion and find it to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 365, 636 N.Y.S.2d 308, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacks-insulation-contracting-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack