Wilton v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilton v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

170 A.D.2d 598, 566 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 598 (Wilton 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

Wilton v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 170 A.D.2d 598, 566 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants lack jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s property, the plain[599]*599tiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), dated August 16, 1989, as upon denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint and declared that the defendants had jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In this instance both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold had the authority to issue the Notices of Violation (see, ECL 71-2303; Southold Town Code §§ 97-13, 97-20). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendants lack jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s property, the plain[599]*599tiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), dated August 16, 1989, as upon denying the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granting the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissed the complaint and declared that the defendants had jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In this instance both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold had the authority to issue the Notices of Violation (see, ECL 71-2303; Southold Town Code §§ 97-13, 97-20). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 598, 566 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilton-v-new-york-state-department-of-environmental-conservation-nyappdiv-1991.