STROBEL, GERALD v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL CONVERSATIO
This text of STROBEL, GERALD v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL CONVERSATIO (STROBEL, GERALD v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL CONVERSATIO) 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.
Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
1148 CA 13-00572 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.
IN THE MATTER OF GERALD STROBEL, FAITH STROBEL, JAMES COLLINS, PATRICIA COLLINS, FREDERICK MINTER AND BARBARA MINTER, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, TOWN OF CLARENCE, ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, JAMES BUONO AND KELLI BUONO, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
BLAIR & ROACH, LLP, TONAWANDA (DAVID L. ROACH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY HOFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
BENNETT, DIFILIPPO & KURTZHALTS, LLP, HOLLAND (RONALD P. BENNETT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT TOWN OF CLARENCE.
MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (KENNETH R. KIRBY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
MYERS, QUINN & SCHWARTZ, LLP, WILLIAMSVILLE (JAMES I. MYERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS JAMES BUONO AND KELLI BUONO.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 1, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding alleging, inter alia, that respondents acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in issuing a permit for and undertaking the construction of a spillway at a freshwater pond in the Town of Clarence (respondent). Inasmuch as respondent moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and a special proceeding may be summarily determined “upon the pleadings, papers and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised” (CPLR 409 [b]; see CPLR 7804 [a]; Matter of Barreca v DeSantis, 226 AD2d 1085, 1086), we reject petitioners’ contention that Supreme -2- 1148 CA 13-00572
Court’s consideration was limited to the issue whether the petition contained a cognizable legal theory (see CPLR 7804 [f]; Matter of Conners v Town of Colonie, 108 AD3d 837, 839). We further conclude that the court properly determined that none of petitioners’ causes of action has merit (see generally Held v Kaufman, 91 NY2d 425, 430-431).
Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
STROBEL, GERALD v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL CONVERSATIO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strobel-gerald-v-new-york-state-department-of-environmental-conversatio-nyappdiv-2013.