From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hubbard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1987
126 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

January 26, 1987

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


Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying a protective order with respect to certain examinations before trial, is dismissed, as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the plaintiffs' motion to discontinue the action, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs sought to discontinue their action. They failed to obtain a preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the action, which sought a permanent injunction and the assessment of civil penalties based on the defendants' alleged violation of an order of summary suspension of landfill operations issued by the plaintiff Commissioner. Thereafter the plaintiff Commissioner vacated the prior order and issued a modified order of summary suspension which set forth conditions that when complied with and approved by the plaintiff Commissioner would permit the defendants to continue operations.

There is no prejudice or injustice that will result from such discontinuance, since, absent the order of summary suspension which has been vacated, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the action pursuant to ECL 71-0301. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiffs' application to discontinue the action (see, County of Westchester v. Becket Assoc., 102 A.D.2d 34, appeals dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 734, affd 66 N.Y.2d 642).

The defendants are admittedly subject to regulation by the plaintiffs by virtue of their ownership and operation of the landfill and continue to be subject to the administrative procedures of the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right to have an action continued that cannot be prosecuted. Niehoff, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Hubbard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1987
126 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

State v. Hubbard

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, v. THEODORE HUBBARD et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1987

Citations

126 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Great Western Bank v. Terio

The authority of a court to grant or to deny an application pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) for a voluntary…

25 Jay St. Tenants' v. 25 Jay St.

The authority of a court to grant or to deny an application for voluntary discontinuance of a litigation made…