CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioner Universal Waste, Inc. initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation's denial of its application to reclassify a 21-acre parcel in Utica, Oneida County, from a Class 2 to a Class 3 inactive hazardous waste disposal site, or to have it removed from the registry entirely. The site, contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a former scrap metal operation, had been designated a Class 2 site by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) since 1985 due to a significant environmental threat, triggering a complex legal and administrative history. Despite an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation for reclassification to Class 3 following a hearing, the Commissioner ultimately denied the request in October 2011, concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate the site no longer posed a significant threat to the environment. The Commissioner's decision highlighted the presence of massive quantities of PCBs, the absence of effective cleanup measures, and evidence of contamination exceeding state standards both on-site and migrating to the adjacent Mohawk River and wetlands. The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition and finding no jurisdictional overreach, no substantial prejudice from a five-year delay in the decision, and that the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Environmental LawHazardous WastePCB ContaminationSite ReclassificationAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingEnvironmental Conservation Law (ECL)Inactive Hazardous Waste Site RegistryAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
20
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05778 [152 AD3d 1016]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

This case involves an appeal by Riverkeeper, Inc. challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to grant SPDES and Title V permits to Danskammer Energy, LLC for a natural gas electric generating station. Riverkeeper sought annulment of the permits and a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing for a public adjudicatory hearing and a new source review. The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, and the Appellate Division affirmed this judgment. The appellate court found DEC's determinations regarding the lack of need for a public hearing, compliance with thermal discharge regulations through a 'mixing zone' policy, and the non-permanent nature of the station's shutdown for new source review purposes to be rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

Environmental LawPermit RenewalSPDES PermitTitle V PermitState Environmental Quality Review ActPublic HearingNew Source ReviewWater Quality StandardsThermal DischargeClean Air Act
References
37
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06231 [243 AD3d 1034]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of County of Rockland v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

The County of Rockland appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed its application to annul a determination by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The dispute centered on DEC's issuance of a renewed State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Orangeburg Wastewater Treatment Plant, specifically concerning the County's request to incorporate a proposed diffuser project. The County argued that DEC improperly failed to rescind a notice of complete application to allow for a new review process, including consideration of its proposed diffuser, and by requiring a permittee-initiated modification request. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that DEC acted rationally in declining to further delay the permit issuance given the lengthy process and the speculative nature of the diffuser project. The court also determined that the County's additional arguments regarding the "reopening" of the application and the application of equitable estoppel were unpreserved for review or lacked merit.

Environmental LawSPDES PermitWastewater TreatmentJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewEffluent LimitsDiffuser ProjectSEQRA
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01843 [159 AD3d 1493]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Matter of Fichera v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Petitioners challenged actions by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Sterling (ZBA) concerning a mine project. The Supreme Court denied the amended petition and granted motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reinstating the third cause of action, which alleged a violation of General Municipal Law § 239-m due to the ZBA's failure to refer the initial area variance application to the county planning agency. The court found this a jurisdictional defect, rendering the ZBA's determinations null and void, and remitted the matter for a new determination. Other causes of action, including those related to SEQRA, FOIL, and Open Meetings Law, were affirmed as properly dismissed.

Environmental LawZoningArea VarianceJurisdictional DefectGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78SEQRAFOILOpen Meetings LawAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02325 [227 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Matter of Sierra Club v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the Sierra Club appealed a judgment that denied their petition to annul a water withdrawal permit. The permit was granted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to Helix Ravenswood, LLC, allowing them to withdraw water from the East River for a thermoelectric generating station's cooling system. The petitioners argued that the DEC failed to comply with the Water Resources Protection Act (WRPA) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not adequately assessing alternative cooling systems or the impact on aquatic life. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the DEC took a "hard look" at environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for its determination, thus acting neither arbitrarily nor capriciously.

Environmental LawWater Withdrawal PermitSEQRAWRPAAppellate ReviewAdministrative AgencyJudicial ReviewCooling SystemEast RiverLong Island City
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01635
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Committee

The Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust (the carrier) appealed an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc. The claimant, Licinio Marrero, sustained injuries and settled a personal injury action for $100,000 without obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC), which is required when SFCC liability is established prior to settlement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the carrier's request, believing it lacked discretion to compel such consent. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, clarifying that the Supreme Court does have the discretion to issue a nunc pro tunc order compelling consent if certain conditions are met: the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault, the settlement amount was reasonable, and the SFCC was not prejudiced. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundNunc Pro Tunc OrderSettlement ApprovalReimbursementPersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCarrier's WaiverConsent Requirement
References
6
Case No. 61 AD3d 88
Regular Panel Decision

Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioner, Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC, challenged the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to deny its properties' inclusion in the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. DEC's denial was based on its determination that the properties did not meet the statutory definition of a brownfield site, arguing that contamination levels were minimal and did not complicate redevelopment, with issues primarily stemming from solid waste. Lighthouse presented substantial evidence of contamination, including hazardous wastes exceeding cleanup standards, which had demonstrably hindered redevelopment efforts by impacting financing and regulatory approvals. The Supreme Court initially sided with Lighthouse, but the Appellate Division reversed, deferring to DEC's expertise. The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that DEC's interpretation of "brownfield site" was arbitrarily narrow and contrary to the broad legislative intent of the BCP, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment to grant Lighthouse's application.

Brownfield Cleanup ProgramEnvironmental Conservation LawContaminationReal Property RedevelopmentHazardous WasteSolid Waste LandfillSoil Cleanup ObjectivesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 128 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational