Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v Town of Middlefield

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v Town of Middlefield 2012 NY Slip Op 33797(U) June 19, 2012 Supreme Court, Otsego County Docket Number: 2011-0930 Judge: Donald F. Cerio Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] R. 18 CASE#: 2011-930 C6/20/2012 DECISION & ORDER '-\ Imaga: l of 4 :: '· ., ·~·:m.t ..... . . . STATEOFNEWYORK COUNTY OF OTSEGO Decision and Order (pp. 18-21) ..,&.,,·.,.~ FILED.· ANO ENTERED . ' OTSEGO CO,! CLERWS OFFIC1£ SUPRE~ AHlltiSI Present Hon. Donald F. Cerio, Jr. I I Acting Supreme Co1irt Justice COOPERSTOWN HOLSTEm CORPORATION, I 1 v. TOwN OF MIDDLEFlELD,, ~UN 20 2012]1 I mse:;oCXXMV~OFACE DECISION A.ND ORDER. fndexNo. 2011-0930 I bef~ This matter comes on the Court upon Plaintiff's Notik of Motion tO Renew 8nd Affirmation of Yvoone E. Heimessey in Support of Motion {o Renewpursuant to Civil Practice' Law and Rules §2221(e), dated March 29, 2012, seeking gr$t of summary judgment and a. . declaration of this court that Defendant Town of Middlefielh Zoning Law .pertaining to Gas, Oil, Cir Solution Drilling or Mining and the ban on Gas, Oil 9r Solution Drilling ar Mining ·wi.thiln the Town of Middlefield is void as being preempted by Nevi. York S1llte Envirorunental Conservation Law §23-0303. Defendant, ToWn of Middlefield, responded by an Attorney : Affinnation in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Renew dited May 4, 2012. Amici Town of : tnysses, by letter dated May 4, 2012, opposed the plaintiff'~ motion to renew, Amici · EARTIIJUSTICE did not submit responsive pleadings. I ·· On June 1, 2012, in Madison County Supreme Court couns1~ for plaintiff and defendant appeari;d and were heard. , I The following reflects the [)e(:ision and Order of this Court:1 I · . .. · I BriefHistoty · ". . The history of this matter is set forth i.o thls court's Decision and Ordet" ofFebrwuy 24, 2012, a.NJ is incorporated by ref~ herein. · .I Legal Analysis I Rul~ Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Civil Practice Law and §222 i(e) asserting that "newly di&t-OVered facts o.ot offered in support of [Cooperstown Holstein CoxpDration's) prior motion for sllllUilBrJ judgment as well a'.l (Cooperstown Holstein Coi:pdi:ation' s] reasollllble justification fow not previously presenting them" satisfies the statutozy burc!eh imposed upon plaintiff under the· present circumstances .and th.~t this court should therefore clknge its prior detea:nination ll!ld . grunt the relief as requested by plaintiff. (Plaintiff's Affumntlcm dated March 29, 2012, at 14, · [* 2] R. 19 CASE#: 2011-930 06/20/2012 DECISION & ORDE:R Image: 12 of 4 I ~0- ""'i, Dof"""'"'t Midd!clield """" ..;, "''"'""' "new" ond """pl.mtiff bru< oot presented a "reasonable justification" for having fa:iled to prsent such facts in the first instanci:, thereby opposing the relief sought. 1 · Civil Practice Law and Rules §2221(e), as it pertains to am, tio.n to renew, reQ.uires that such motion be identified as such, as is the case here, Md, as is relevant here,: 2. 3. . shll.11 be bailed Upon new facts not offered Ori the prior motion that would chang~o the prior dete11nination... ; and . s~l oon~ n reasonable j ustifi.cation for pnor motion. . tht failure to present .such facts on th \ . ii .. Therefmc, the movant must d~morurtrate that the proffetOO fe.cts rue "n(}w"' and that a reasoruibfo justification exists for having fuiled to include sum fads in the prior motion. lffue movarit: fails to satisfy one or both elements of this provision the mron to renew must fail. new ~e disco~ered facts~I fo~d Here, plaintiff has asserted that "newly are in Executive Chamber Memonmdum, dated.July 9; 1981 (Plaintiff'$ ExliibitE); A.Ssem.bly Bill 6928, dated March 23i 1981 (Plaintiff's Exhibit F), BJO.d, primarily, the accompanryg 1981 Memorandum supporting: A692\l (Plainilifs Exhibit G) and that previous efforts made to discover this information were: unavailing. Defendant takes the position that plaintiff has nbt demonstrated a reasonable justification for oinittibg ili.e above-reference<l itifonnatirui foii:i the original pleadings and thati, in nny event, no new fucts may be gleilned from these adJd.ti' mrl records a:i submitted such that this court should change its piior determination. sec~ Addressing the element of the inquiry first es con ·. ed in CPLR §222l(e), plaintiffha.,1 failed to demonstrate a reasonable justification not havi.rig originally submitted these · pUipOrtedly new facts. Wbi[e.'lhis oourt does not minimize ~e efforts made by plaintiff to locati1: this material within a relatively brief period of time after the issuance ofthe Fe~ruary 24, 2012; Decision and Order, it is olw from a review of the papers fuat plaintiff was initially aware oftlle existence of additional materials with respect to the 198 l le~slation and voluntarily chose to · discllftllime efforts at that timt: to locate such ID. p.repara.tionJor the filing of the original' . pleadings. Inpartfoular. plcintiffsetsforth in the HennesseJ/ Affiimation ofMarcb 29, 2012, tll1at initial review of the Bill Jacket did not contain the "detailed;jmemo i:xplaining the Legislation" :os. referenced in tpe Department of Environmental Conservatiop. Legislatlv'e Memorandum of Ju11 6, l 981. (See ~L I, thereof). 1bough plaintiff then e-0~ cunent counsel for lhe Departme~1t of Environmental Conservation, Division ofMine.ral Resources, in an effort to locate this , ·memorandum. such. proved fruitless. Despite the knowledge ~t such a document had existed ~I the time of the enllCtio.ent of the 198l legislation, and tho~ having been unable to·locate 11 coj:iy of same, COlllJSel for plaintiff c:oncluded her effor!S and procWed to submit the original movinll! papers without this documentiiry legislative support. (See Hbonessey Affinnation, ~15, thereofJ. for 1 · 1 Amici Town of Ulysses, by letter dated May 4, 20) simJ?lY asserts it's opposition to plaintiff's motion. · I I [* 3] R. 20 C.P.SElt: 2011-930 06/z°0/2012 DECISION. & ORDER Image:· 3 of 4 I ' ! giver~ cburt•s Such choice as made by plaintiff's counsel was not, in this assessment. reasonable the relevant circumstances present (See Ii.hbiw v,.Yerizon Nicw York. Irie .. 40 AD3d 1300, 31<\ Dpt 2007; Serbalib.J)enem). Motors Com.t 252 AD2d soi, 3n1 Dpt. 1998). · . . . I With respect to the first element of §222l(e), and assuming 1,.gu<mdo that plaintiff's present justification were reasonable, 1he submissio~ on behalf of p~filntiff do not demonstrate new facts., upon a plain reading theireof, which would cause this ~urt to change it's prior determination °pertaining to the extent and implication of th supersession clause as contained within the 1981 legislation.. • 1 Pl.aintilitakes the position that the foilowing pa!lsnge contrubed in the t 981 Memorandum support.ingA6928 (Plaintiff'e Exhibit G) conclusively demohstrates the state's intention to . <lisp~ or preempt entirely focal municipat°authorlty with r/:spect to the rogulation of the oil, rg~ artd.oolution mining industry: ~ I. · . · The provision for supersedure by the Oil, Gas and scilution Mining Law·oflocal laws and ordinances dmfies the legislative intent behind the enactment of the oil and gas law in 12fil, The comprehensive scheme enrlsi9ned by this law and the technical expertise required to administer and enforck it, neces~itates that this authority be reserved to the State. L-Ocal govcmmentjs diverse attempts to~ oil, gas lllld solution mining acti vi.ties serve to hru:o.pif those who seek to develop these i:esouteeS and three:ten the efficient development of there resources, with -- statewide repercussions. With adequate staffing end funding, the State'$ oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program will be able ~o address the concerns of local governments and assure the efficient and safe dbnlopment fo these epergy resources. (1981 Meoiorandum; Emp~is added). J A reading of this provision. cloorly references the 1963 pred~essor provisions which, themselvi1s, specifii;ally addressed the "how" of oil, gos and solution mir!mg or drilling, rather than "where'\ such activity may occur. The memorandum, by its very termk, per:tairu to the matter of ptog:mmi funding and serves to confirm the state's interest in bringing! to bear the "technical expertise" : necessatjly t?Iuired by state oversight, Jl!fher than dispamt.e local control, to effectuate effective . ~- uili1'btiruty With respect to the mlinner and method by Which ·such drilliDg would occur. Supersession, ~ refereiiced within the memorandum.jdid not sez11e nor was intended to preempt local land use regula.6.on wi1h respect to this indusfr1Y. To conclude from a reading of iliis passage that the legislative innmt was. to disev.franchise loca.i authorities from implementing lotj:ll. i ~~.regulation would seem a leap of consb:uctive interpreltation which this court cannot 1 ~bmissions ' Conclusion Upon a reviewaftbe ofplaintiff sucti do not seke to support a basis upon which : this court may change it's prior detemtln.a.tion that local mw:licipalities are vested with the authority to either permit or prohibit oil, gas and solution mib.ing or drilling, within their geographical jurisdiction. [* 4] R. 21 CASEI: 2011-930 j • ~ 06/20/2012 . • DECISION & ORDER . !~age: 4 o~ 4 I. . . ·1 .· : Therefore, upon the facts and <~ircumstanres of this niatter, ind ui>on the relevant statutory and decisional law of this state, piaintiff' s. motion to 'rene~ is dehled:: .· . . Enter. DATED: TO: June 19, 2012 WHII1psville, New York . H .D ~cting Y~onne E. ~eanessey, Esq., Attorne; ~or .PI~tiff f upri I ' I , Michael Wnght, Esq.;Attomey for l'lamtiff ; , Clwyl A. Roberts, Esq:-; .AttOineyfor Defendant Deborah. Goldberg, Esq., Attorney for Amid ~ARUVUS,TICB John Henry, Esq., Attorney for Amici Town ofUl~s ' Christy Ba.~s, Chief Court Clerk Otsego Couniy Supft:mc!Court .. ..~ I '~ . . l·

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.