Longwood Associates, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Longwood Associates, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

71 A.D.3d 534, 897 N.Y.S.2d 72

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 534 (Longwood Associates, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) 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

Longwood Associates, LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 71 A.D.3d 534, 897 N.Y.S.2d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti[535]*535Hughes, J.), entered October 10, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, reduced the administrative penalty of $250,000, imposed on petitioner for violation of provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and the Navigation Law arising out of the presence of an unregistered 2,000 gallon petroleum bulk storage tank in the basement of its building, to $100,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the penalty of $250,000 reinstated.

Supreme Court lacked the authority to modify the administrative penalty since it dismissed the petition as time-barred (see Matter of Van Cortlandt Park Dodge v Commissioner of Dept. of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 178 AD2d 234, 235 [1991]). The reduction of the penalty was also improper because the original penalty did not shock the conscience (see e.g. Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]), particularly where Supreme Court had concluded that it was “very reasonable.” Furthermore, although during settlement discussions respondent had offered to reduce the penalty to $100,000, this is not a basis on which to reduce the penalty. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti[535]*535Hughes, J.), entered October 10, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, reduced the administrative penalty of $250,000, imposed on petitioner for violation of provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law and the Navigation Law arising out of the presence of an unregistered 2,000 gallon petroleum bulk storage tank in the basement of its building, to $100,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the penalty of $250,000 reinstated.

Supreme Court lacked the authority to modify the administrative penalty since it dismissed the petition as time-barred (see Matter of Van Cortlandt Park Dodge v Commissioner of Dept. of Consumer Affairs of City of N.Y., 178 AD2d 234, 235 [1991]). The reduction of the penalty was also improper because the original penalty did not shock the conscience (see e.g. Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]), particularly where Supreme Court had concluded that it was “very reasonable.” Furthermore, although during settlement discussions respondent had offered to reduce the penalty to $100,000, this is not a basis on which to reduce the penalty. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 534, 897 N.Y.S.2d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longwood-associates-llc-v-new-york-state-department-of-environmental-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack