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
Standing To Challenge Environmental Reviews At Issue Once Again
New York courts have grappled for many years with the issue of who has legal standing to challenge the environmental review, under New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), of proposed development project by a governmental agency (such as local planning board). This issue has been a contentious one since the Court of Appeals decided Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 (1991), in which the Court held that a party seeking to challenge an agency’s compliance with SEQRA must first show that it has suffered an injury different from that of the public at large and that such injury is within SEQRA’s “zone of interest.” Numerous cases, many commenced by environmental or citizen groups seeking to challenge the SEQRA review of a proposed project by a local governing board, have grappled with the scope and intent of this Society of Plastics standing rule. This article briefly highlights two recent cases on this issue.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Clarifies Cost Recovery Rights Under CERCLA
In W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, Inc., ___ F3d___, WL 564048 (2nd Cir., 2009), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether and under what specific circumstances a potentially responsible party (PRP) can seek recovery of its response costs against another PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Three specific CERCLA provisions relating to cost recovery and contribution rights for parties which have incurred response costs cleaning up a contaminated site were the focus of the Second Circuit’s analysis in W.R. Grace:
Fourth Department Upholds DEC Denial of Brownfield Cleanup Program Application
In the Matter of Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC, v. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, et al., Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 2009 NY Slip Op 00878 (Feb. 6, 2009)
This article focuses on a area of environmental law – the New York Brownfield Cleanup Program – which is the subject of much recent controversy and litigation.
More Articles...
- Fourth Department Revisits Brownfield Cleanup Program Eligibility
- Albany Supreme Court Dismisses State’s Navigation Law Action
- A Brief Reflection on Upstate New York’s Environment
- DEC Issues New Policies On the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
- The Third Department Reaffirms Expansive View of Liability for Petroleum Spills in New York
