Frederick Eisenbud
Environmental and Land Use Practice Group
Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway
Suite 400
Ronkonkoma, New York 11779

1025 Old Country Road
Suite 405
Westbury, NY 11590

2495 Montauk Highway
P.O. Box 3046
Bridgehampton, NY 11932

Map & Directions

Telephone: 631-738-9100 x339
Fax: 631-738-0659
Email the Environmental and Land Use Practice Group


Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Blogger


In the Matter of Raphael Riverso v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 125 A.D.3d 974 (2nd Dept. 2015) (Second Department reinstated an Article 78 Petition challenging the refusal of the DEC to modify the Record of Decision permitting the Town of Clarkstown to cap solid and hazardous waste dumped onto a portion of property owned by Mr. Riverso in place instead of requiring off-site disposal, finding the challenge was not barred by the statute of limitations, and further ruled that it was error for the lower court to reach the merits of the Article 78 Petition before the DEC filed an answer and the administrative record).

In re Raphael Riverso v. Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority, 96 A.D.3d 764 (2nd Dept. 2012) (The Authority made a determination and finding after a public hearing to condemn the Firm's client' property.  The Firm participated fully in the hearing, making a thorough presentation to show that a SEQRA DEIS was required.  The Authority, however, adopted a negative declaration.  The Second Department reversed, agreeing with the Firm that the Authority failed to identify potential adverse environmental impacts or to take a hard look at those impacts.  Further, the Second Department agreed that the Authority's claim that a DEIS could not be prepared because the Authority had not yet adopted a plan for the use of the property must be rejected because improper SEQRA segmentation would result.  The Second Department rejected the Authority's determination, and remanded for proper environmental review.).

Eskenazi v. Mackoul, 92 A.D.3d 828 (2nd. Dept. 2012) (In this neighbor against neighbor Navigation Law case, the Appellate Davison affirmed the lower court's rejection of the Defendants' efforts to reopen discovery and to renew their motion for summary judgment.  Summary judgment on liability had been granted to Plaintiffs in December 2008, while Defendants' motion for the same relief was denied, and the Appellate Division affirmed in 2010.  Defendants then claimed that they were unaware that there was an abandoned underground storage tank on Plaintiffs' property (the house had natural gas when the Plaintiffs purchased the home in 1994), and that discovery should be reopened so Defendants could determine if the UST caused or contributed to the petroleum trapped under Plaintiffs house which DEC had determined came from the neighbor's abandoned UST.  The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's rejection of Defendants' motion to reargue and then to renew, agreeing with the Firm that "the defendants failed to set forth a reasonable justification as to why they did not depose certain individuals or investigate the underground petroleum storage tank on the plaintiffs' property prior to their initial motion", particularly in light of the fact that they knew of the existence of the abandoned UST on Plaintiffs' property since Plaintiffs were deposed in January 2008.).

New York v. Hickey's Carting, Inc., 380 F.Supp.2d 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (CERCLA did not preempt state's common law claims; fact issues remained as to when state implemented remedial program for cleanup of town's landfill; and state sufficiently alleged cause of action for implied indemnity).

W.J.F. Realty Corp. v. Town of Southampton, 261 A.D.2d 609, 690 N.Y.S.2d 725
(2d. Dep't. 1999) (determination that denial of exemption violated developer's equal protection rights was improper in absence of proof that developer was similarly situated to other properties granted an exemption; and developer failed to show town's conduct was not in furtherance of legitimate governmental objectives).

Prato v. Vigliotta, 253 A.D.2d 746, 677 N.Y.S.2d 386 (2d. Dep't 1998) (plaintiffs could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of alleged toxic exposure).

Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Dept. of Civil Service, 157 A.D.2d 784, 550 N.Y.S.2d 384 (2d Dep't. 1990) (statute providing that employee holding civil service appointment for a period of three years would be presumed to have been duly appointed or promoted was not applicable to "acting police officers" whose appointment by village board were temporary or provisional).

Eisenbud v. Suffolk County, 841 F.2d 42 (2d. Cir. 1988) (county financial disclosure law does not violate attorneys employed by the county's rights under equal protection clause).

Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County, 71 N.Y.2d 91, 518 N.E.2d 903
(1987) (county ordinance prohibiting sale of cesspool additives without prior approval by county commissioner was not preempted by state statute prohibiting sale and use of sewage system cleaning additives containing certain toxic chemicals).

People v. Roth, 121 A.D.2d 576, 503 N.Y.S.2d 627 (2d Dep't. 1986) (People could properly aggregate the various disposals of hazardous wastes which defendant allegedly made in 11-month period at three sites to reach quantity required for felony).

Henry v. Noto, 50 N.Y.2d 816, 407 N.E.2d 1329 (1980) (county legislature resolution empowering county executive and presiding officer to approve or disapprove a request to fill any position earmarked by director of budget was inapplicable as applied to the office of the district attorney, inasmuch as it gave the county executive and presiding officer power unilaterally to frustrate action of legislature in authorizing assistants for the district attorney).

People v. Luongo, 47 N.Y.2d 418, 391 N.E.2d 1341 (N.Y. 1979) (evidence was sufficient to show guilty intent on part of defendant and to establish that he had committed crime of larceny by false promise, and (2) principles of double jeopardy did not preclude such defendant, who had been convicted of multiple counts of larceny by false promise in one county, from being prosecuted in another county for larceny by false promise in connection with transactions relating to same plan which was involved in the prior convictions).

People v. Dairsaw, 46 N.Y.2d 739, 386 N.E.2d 249 (N.Y. 1978) (improper postponing of arraignment did not render any statements made by defendant after his arrest involuntary as matter of law).

Now accepting credit cards.

The Environmental and Land Use Practice Group of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP is located in Ronkonkoma, on Long Island, New York, and provides experienced environmental law representation for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County and New York City.