After nine successful years, Bowitch & Coffey is closing its doors. Starting August 1, 2021, Gary Bowitch and Dan Coffey will be practicing law in their own law firms and will continue to provide clients with the same high quality legal services in their areas of expertise. Their new contact information is:
Gary S. Bowitch
Attorney at Law
13 Willow Street
Castleton, NY 12033
Phone: 518-527-2232
Email: gbowitch@bowitchlaw.com
Bowitch Law New Website
Daniel Coffey
Coffey Law PLLC
17 Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-813-9500
Email: Dan@coffeylawny.com
Coffey Law New Website
Appeals Court Upholds Town’s Right to Prohibit “Hydrofracking”
On May 2, 2013, a mid-level New York appellate court affirmed a town’s right to prohibit, through local zoning laws, the exploration for natural gas and oil through traditional means and by hydraulic fracturing or “hydrofracking.” The case, Norse Energy Corporation, USA v. Town of Dryden, et al., revolved around whether New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) preempted a municipality’s power to prohibit oil and gas mining.
Third Department Reviews Freedom of Information Law Applicability to Hudson River PCB Cleanup Records
In the Matter of Town of Waterford v. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, __ N.Y.S.2d ___ (2010) the Appellate Division, Third Department addressed the scope of exemptions to New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), codified in Article 6 of the Public Officers Law (POL). Specifically, the Court examined whether the “inter–agency and intra-agency communications” exemption to disclosure applied to communications between a state agency, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and a federal one, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Court also reviewed whether documents created as part of settlement negotiations could be properly withheld from disclosure.
Second Circuit Panel Reviews Legality of Suffolk County Mosquito Control Activities
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Peconic Baykeeper Inc. v. Suffolk County, __F.3d __, 2010 WL 1192325 (C.A.2, N.Y.) recently ruled on the legality of Suffolk County’s mosquito control activities. The case involved a challenge, brought under the Clean Water Act (CWA) by Peconic Baykeeper, Inc., to various efforts conducted by Suffolk County (Suffolk) to curb the mosquito population, including airborne spraying of two pesticides and the dredging of a network of mosquito ditches which drain marshland surface waters reducing the mosquito the breeding grounds. After a careful examination of the facts and application of federal rules governing these activities, the 2nd Circuit vacated portions of the Eastern District of New York District Court’s ruling on Suffolk’s spraying activities but affirmed the lower court’s approval of Suffolk’s dredging maintenance activities.
More Articles...
- Landowner Liability for Petroleum Spills Reviewed by the Fourth Department
- DC Court of Appeals Rejects GE’s Constitutional Challenge to CERCLA‘s Unilateral Order Provisions
- Court of Appeals Revisits SEQRA Standing Rules
- Court of Appeals Rejects NYSDEC Interpretation Of Brownfield Statute
- Appellate Division Rules on Challenge to Construction of Sand Dunes on a Public Beach
