Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Coeymans Recycling Center LLC et al, No. 1:2020cv01025 - Document 166 (N.D.N.Y 2024)

Court Description: DECISION & ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiffs request for an order compelling defendants to allow plaintiff to conduct wet weather (Dkt. No. 116) visits is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff may conduct two (2) wet weather visits of eight (8) hours in length each. Plaintiff shall provided defendants with seventy-two hours advance notice before any wet site visit is to be conducted. If plaintiff wishes to cancel a scheduled wet weather visit, plaintiff is to provide twelve-hours advance notice of such cancellation to defendants by e- mail; (2) In order to effectuate the scheduling of such visits, counsel shall exchange their schedules every two weeks until all visits have occurred; (3) Plaintiffs motion seeking the imposition of sanctions (Dkt. No. 116) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel on 5/2/2024. (khr)

Download PDF
Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Coeymans Recycling Center LLC et al Doc. 166 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ RIVERKEEPER, INC., Plaintiff, 1:20-CV-01025 (GTS/CFH) v. COEYMANS RECYCLING CENTER LLC, COEYMANS RECYCLING CENTER II, LLC, CARVER LARAWAY, Defendants. _____________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: Super Law Group, LLC 222 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10038 Attorneys for plaintiff EDAN ROTENBERG, ESQ. JULIA KATHRYN MUENCH, ESQ. Young, Sommer Law Firm Executive Woods 5 Palisades Drive Albany, New York 12205 Attorneys for defendants JOSEPH F. CASTIGLIONE, ESQ. DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff Riverkeeper, Inc. filed a motion to compel defendants to allow wet site visits and for the imposition of sanctions. See Dkt. No. 116. Defendants filed a response in opposition to that motion. See Dkt. No. 124. Plaintiff filed a reply. See Dkt. No. 129. On April 20, 2024, the Court conducted an in person, on-the-record conference with counsel for all parties. See Text Min. Entry dated Apr. 30, 2024. As directed 1 Dockets.Justia.com during that conference and for the reasons stated at that time, which are incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling defendants to allow plaintiff to conduct wet weather (Dkt. No. 116) visits is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiff may conduct two (2) wet weather visits of eight (8) hours in length each. Plaintiff shall provided defendants with seventy-two hours advance notice before any wet site visit is to be conducted. If plaintiff wishes to cancel a scheduled wet weather visit, plaintiff is to provide twelve-hours advance notice of such cancellation to defendants by e-mail; (2) In order to effectuate the scheduling of such visits, counsel shall exchange their schedules every two weeks until all visits have occurred; (3) Plaintiff’s motion seeking the imposition of sanctions (Dkt. No. 116) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2024 Albany, New York 2

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.