Summary
ruling that action presented a justiciable controversy
Summary of this case from Mattia v. Vill. of Pittsford Planning & Zoning Bd. of AppealsOpinion
No. CA 07-02508.
December 31, 2008.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered September 21, 2007 in a declaratory judgment action. The order granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied plaintiff's' cross motion for summary judgment.
COHEN LOMBARDO, P.C., BUFFALO (ANTHONY M. NOSEK OF COUNSEL), FOR plaintiff's-APPELLANTS.
ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (PAUL V. WEBB, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Before: Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and reinstating the amended complaint and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: While an action between plaintiff's and defendants was pending with respect to Local Law No. 1 of 2005 ( Jones v Town of Carroll, 57 AD3d 1376), defendants enacted Local Law No. 1 of 2007 (2007 Law), which made the operation of solid waste management facilities located in defendant Town of Carroll a class A misdemeanor but exempted, inter alia, "[a]ny bona-fide solid waste management facility which is in operation under a permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation [DEC] as of the date of this Local Law . . . under the current terms and conditions of its existing operating permit issued by the DEC." plaintiff's commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring that the 2007 Law is null and void.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8) alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff's sought merely an advisory opinion. plaintiff's cross-moved for summary judgment on the same grounds raised in their motion in appeal No. 1 ( Jones, 57 AD3d 1376). We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants' motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. First, although the action sought a determination of plaintiff's' rights upon the happening of a future event, that future event is not one that is "beyond the control of the parties" ( New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527, 531; see Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349, 354). Second, plaintiff's have raised a valid challenge under article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and thus a justiciable controversy exists ( see Matter of Gordon v Rush, 299 AD2d 20, 30, affd 100 NY2d 236; Society of Plastics Indus, v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 778; see generally Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 203).
We further conclude, however, that plaintiff's are not entitled to summary judgment on their amended complaint, for the reasons stated in our decision in appeal No. 1 ( Jones 57 AD3d 1376).