Fourth Department – Administrative proceeding: Seneca Meadows Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls

Listen to this article

New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

 Administrative proceeding

Ambiguities and binding determinations

Seneca Meadows Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls

CA 20-01397

Appealed from Supreme Court, Seneca County

Background: The petitioner operated a solid waste disposal facility in the respondent town for several decades pursuant to lawfully-issued permits issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The respondent enacted a 2016 law which prohibited solid waste disposal facilities in the town but permitted existing facilities that operate pursuant to a valid DEC permit to continue, but not beyond 2025. The petitioner commenced an action challenging the law and, in 2017, the respondent enacted a law that rescinded the 2016 law. Therefore, the petitioner discontinued the proceeding without prejudice. In the meantime, a third-party commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the 2017 law, which was then annulled, and the 2016 law was reinstated. The petitioners commenced a second action. The petitioner appeals from the dismissal of its petition.

Ruling: The Appellate Division reversed. The court held that it is the burden of the administrative agency to demonstrate the existence of a final and binding determination and any ambiguity or uncertainty created by the agency must be construed against it. When the 2017 law was annulled and the 2016 reinstated, the petitioners had four months from that time to commence the second proceeding. The court further held that any blame should be placed on the respondent town board for creating the uncertainty regarding the finality of the 2016 law by enacting the 2017 law.

Richard A. McGuirk, of Nixon Peabody, for the petitioner-plaintiff-appellant; David K. Hou, of Boylan Code, for the respondents-defendants-respondents; Douglas H. Zamelis, for the intervenors-respondents.