From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Lee Oil Company, Inc. v. Jorling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 5, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Horey, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in ordering the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to transfer well plugging responsibilities from Allegro Oil Company (Allegro) to Lee Oil Company, Inc. (Lee Oil). Because the CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced 10 months after the denial of the transfer by DEC, it was barred by both the 60-day limitation period set forth in ECL 23-0307 and the four-month period in CPLR 217. The Environmental Conservation Law does not authorize reconsideration of a determination (ECL 23-0305, [8] [g]). Therefore, the telephone call by Lee Oil did not extend or toll the limitation period (see, Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 N.Y.2d 216; Matter of Walsh v Superintendent of Highways of Town of Poestenkill, 135 A.D.2d 968, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 808).

Further, DEC's determination was not irrational or arbitrary and it was error for the court to substitute its judgment for that of DEC (see, Matter of Warder v Board of Regents, 53 N.Y.2d 186, cert denied 454 U.S. 1125). An administrative agency is given great deference in matters within its area of expertise (see, Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 113 A.D.2d 440, affd 69 N.Y.2d 355). DEC's determination was based on sound reasoning. Approval of a transfer would violate the regulations that require Allegro to maintain financial security before the approval of a transfer (see, 6 NYCRR 551.4 [c]). Also, if Allegro were to transfer the producing wells while retaining the non-producing wells without any security, the non-producing wells would have to be plugged by the State (ECL 23-0305 [e]). Such a result would frustrate the purpose behind the requirement for financial security, which is to guarantee the performance of well-plugging responsibilities by Allegro (see, ECL 23-0305; 6 NYCRR 551.4 [a]).


Summaries of

Matter of Lee Oil Company, Inc. v. Jorling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Lee Oil Company, Inc. v. Jorling

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LEE OIL COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. THOMAS C. JORLING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 5, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 689

Citing Cases

Tarsel v. Trombino

We also reject defendant's contention that the court accorded too much weight to the testimony of plaintiffs’…

Matter of Wasielewski v. Vossler

When respondents, in their letter of October 2, 1992, denied the group's request for a hearing, they merely…