Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp. v. Zagata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp. v. Zagata

248 A.D.2d 540, 669 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 540 (Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp. v. Zagata) 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

Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp. v. Zagata, 248 A.D.2d 540, 669 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review so much of a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation as, inter alia, after a hearing, determined that the petitioners violated Environmental Conservation Law § 27-0707, 6 NYCRR 360-1.7, and Navigation Law §§ 173 and 175, and imposed penalties and fines against them, denied the application of the petitioner Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp., a/k/a Mount Hope Asphalt Corp., for a certificate to operate an afterburner, and revoked the permit of the petitioner Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp., a/k/a Mount Hope Asphalt Corp., to construct and test a rehydration chamber.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed insofar as reviewed and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.

In order to annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231). The petitioners’ contention that the determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter the DEC) was not supported by substantial evidence is without merit. The testimony of the witnesses for the DEC established the facts necessary to sustain the charges that the petitioners had violated Special Conditions 4.B and 5.B of the permit, had discharged petroleum at the Mt. Hope facility in violation of the Navigation Law, and are unfit and unsuitable to hold DEC permits. The penalties imposed were not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).

We have reviewed the petitioners’ remaining contentions [541]*541and find them to be without merit.

Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review so much of a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation as, inter alia, after a hearing, determined that the petitioners violated Environmental Conservation Law § 27-0707, 6 NYCRR 360-1.7, and Navigation Law §§ 173 and 175, and imposed penalties and fines against them, denied the application of the petitioner Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp., a/k/a Mount Hope Asphalt Corp., for a certificate to operate an afterburner, and revoked the permit of the petitioner Mt. Hope Asphalt Corp., a/k/a Mount Hope Asphalt Corp., to construct and test a rehydration chamber.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed insofar as reviewed and the proceeding is dismissed, on the merits, with costs.

In order to annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231). The petitioners’ contention that the determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter the DEC) was not supported by substantial evidence is without merit. The testimony of the witnesses for the DEC established the facts necessary to sustain the charges that the petitioners had violated Special Conditions 4.B and 5.B of the permit, had discharged petroleum at the Mt. Hope facility in violation of the Navigation Law, and are unfit and unsuitable to hold DEC permits. The penalties imposed were not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).

We have reviewed the petitioners’ remaining contentions [541]*541and find them to be without merit.

Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 540, 669 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mt-hope-asphalt-corp-v-zagata-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack