Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: PEOPLE of the State of New York, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Basil Seggos, as Acting Commissioner of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Petitioners–Respondents, v. Peter J. BATTAGLIA, Jr., as an Individual and Corporate Officer of Battaglia Demolition Inc., Buffalo Recycled Aggregate LLC, and Battaglia Trucking Inc., Respondents–Appellants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioners, the People of the State of New York, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Basil Seggos, as acting commissioner of the DEC, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) seeking, inter alia, to enjoin respondents from illegally operating a solid waste management facility and concrete crusher until required DEC permits and approvals were obtained and the facility was brought into compliance with the relevant regulations. Respondents contend that Supreme Court erred in granting the petition in part and enjoining operations at the facility until the “DEC has approved any and all required permits,” and in finding respondent Peter J. Battaglia, Jr. personally liable for any and all penalties assessed against respondents. We reject those contentions and affirm the order and judgment for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.
We write only to note that, contrary to respondents' contention, the court had subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding inasmuch as the matter is ripe for judicial review. Although “[w]here the harm sought to be enjoined is contingent upon events which may not come to pass, the claim to enjoin the purported hazard is nonjusticiable as wholly speculative and abstract” (Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Empls., Dist. Council 82, AFSCME, AFL–CIO v. Cuomo, 64 N.Y.2d 233, 240, 485 N.Y.S.2d 719, 475 N.E.2d 90 [1984]), that is not the case here. The matter is ripe for judicial review inasmuch as petitioners seek to enjoin respondents from conduct causing a materialized harm, i.e., respondents' operation of a solid waste management facility in violation of the relevant regulations (see generally Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510, 518, 505 N.Y.S.2d 24, 496 N.E.2d 183 [1986], cert denied 479 U.S. 985, 107 S.Ct. 574, 93 L.Ed.2d 578 [1986]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1254
Decided: January 31, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)