Matter of Bayswater Civic v. N.Y. State Dept

2 Citing cases

  1. Town of Southampton v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 35364 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    The Court turns first to petitioners' causes of action that seek to nullify DEC's approval of the Agreement entered into between DEC and Sand Land. Importantly, DEC's Commissioner has the power to "[e]nter into contracts with any person to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the functions, powers and duties of the department" (ECL 3 -03 01 [2] [b]; see Matter of Bays water Civic Assn, v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation. 159 A.D.2d 566, 567 [2d Dept 1990]). Petitioners first argue that DEC's execution and approval of the Agreement was arbitrary and capricious and a violation of the law because the Agreement falsely states the Life of Mine acreage. Petitioners urge that the false listing of the Life of Mine - and the agreement that DEC will approve Sand Land's application to renew its MLRP for the 34.5-acre Life of Mine-was done to circumvent DEC's 2014 denial of a permit modification application, the ALJ's 2014 ruling and ECL 23-2703 (3).

  2. Catskill Center for Conservation & Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

    169 Misc. 2d 134 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    It is well settled that it is within the prosecutorial discretion of the Commissioner to enter into consent orders to abate violations of the Environmental Conservation Law. (Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Town of Islip, 71 N.Y.2d 292, 306; Matter of Bayswater Civic Assn. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 159 A.D.2d 566.) In this proceeding, which seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's determination to enter the consent order, "the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency responsible for making the determination, but must ascertain only whether there is a rational basis for the decision or whether it is arbitrary and capricious".