Matter of Deutsch Relays v. N.Y. State Dept

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of N.Y. Site Dev. v. N.Y. State Dept

    217 A.D.2d 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 37 times

    Accordingly, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata are not applicable (see, e.g., Sherman v. Ansell, 207 A.D.2d 537; Matter of Iliana C., 206 A.D.2d 473). In addition, we find, in light of all the circumstances, that the penalty imposed on the petitioners was neither a violation of due process nor so disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233; Matter of Telesco v Village of Port Chester, 211 A.D.2d 723; Odette Rest. Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 210 A.D.2d 149; Matter of Deutsch Relays v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 179 A.D.2d 756; compare, Matter of Vito v. Jorling, 197 A.D.2d 822, 824). Finally, Benjamin Rastelli, Sr.'s due process argument concerning his individual liability for the fine imposed is not properly before this Court since it was not raised at the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Glazer v. Hankin, 50 A.D.2d 924).

  2. Matter of Vito v. Jorling

    197 A.D.2d 822 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 13 times

    , it is excessive. While, unarguably, petitioner's conduct cannot be said to be inadvertent and it is evident from a review of the legislative history underlying enactment of the bulk petroleum controls (ECL 17-1001 et seq.) that the potential for harm from underground petroleum storage tanks is, as respondents note, significant (see generally, Bill Jacket, L 1983, ch 613), we are disturbed in this case by two facts: first, the conspicuous omission of the complete calculation methodology DEC used to arrive at the $59,044 penalty, most particularly the amounts representing economic benefit and interest (cf., Matter of Deutsch Relays v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 179 A.D.2d 756), and second, the fact that DEC was willing to settle the case for a meager $500 penalty.