From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Town of East Hampton v. Jorling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1992
181 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 16, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.).


Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner Towns commenced these three proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review administrative enforcement orders of the Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter DEC) to close landfills in the Towns which were found to be in violation of the Long Island Landfill Law (ECL 27-0704). Previously, the Towns had brought an action for a declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of that law. In that action, when we affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction we explicitly stated, "review pursuant to CPLR article 78 will be available if necessary when the DEC does take action to close the landfills in question. In the meantime, an expeditious trial of the merits of the constitutional issues raised by the Towns should be had" (Town of E. Hampton v Cuomo, 172 A.D.2d 657).

Since that trial has not yet occurred, and given the possibility of irreparable injury to the Towns if the DEC were permitted to proceed with enforcement, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the stays in question (see, CPLR 7805). The State's arguments concerning the merits of the Towns' underlying claims are not properly before the court and are not ripe for review. As we did in Town of E. Hampton v Cuomo (supra), given the possible irreparable damage to all the Towns because of further delay, we encourage an expeditious conclusion to that litigation.

Finally, we are aware that the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, recently determined that any disposition of these proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 must await the resolution of the related action challenging the constitutionality of the Long Island Landfill Law. However, we decline to dismiss the instant appeals on the ground that they thereby have been rendered academic. In view of the likelihood that the issues raised herein would be repeated in any appeal from the Supreme Court's latest determinations in these proceedings, we have elected to dispose of the instant appeals on the merits in the interest of judicial economy. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Town of East Hampton v. Jorling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1992
181 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Town of East Hampton v. Jorling

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, Respondent, v. THOMAS JORLING, as…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 95

Citing Cases

Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State Workers' Comp. Bd.

It is not entirely clear, however, if a petitioner must also show the likelihood of success on the merits and…

Smith v. Proud

While the provision is somewhat ambiguous whether, like "enforcement," the "further proceedings," also refers…