Murtaugh v. New York
Decision Date | 16 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 5:08–CV–1168 (GTS/GHL).,5:08–CV–1168 (GTS/GHL). |
Citation | 810 F.Supp.2d 446 |
Parties | Gail MURTAUGH, Individually and d/b/a Crosby Hill Auto Recycling; Richard R. Murtaugh; Murtaugh Recycling Corp.; Richard O. Murtaugh; and Flood Drive Props., Inc., Plaintiffs, v. State of NEW YORK; Pete Grannis, Comm'r of Envtl. Conservation; Cnty. of Oswego; Benjamin Conlon; Richard Brazell; Maureen Leary; Op–Tech Envtl. Servs., Inc.; William Simpson; and Adm'r Andrea Rhonda Miller, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Law Office of Richard J. Brickwedde, of Counsel: Richard J. Brickwedde, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh and Murtaugh Recycling Corp.
The Wladis Law Firm, PC, of Counsel: Kevin C. Murphy, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs Richard O. Murtaugh and Flood Dr.
Petrone & Petrone, PC, of Counsel: Lori E. Petrone, Esq., Utica, NY, for Defendant County of Oswego.Hancockestabrook, of Counsel: Doreen A. Simmons, Esq., James P. Youngs, Esq., Syracuse, NY, for Defendants Simpson and Op–Tech Envtl. Servs.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, of Counsel: Charles Quackenbush, Esq., Shoshanah Bewlay, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General, Albany, NY, for Defendants New York, Grannis, Conlon, Brazell, Leary, and Miller.
Currently before the Court in this environmental action filed by Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh, Murtaugh Recycling Corp., Richard O. Murtaugh, and Flood Drive Properties, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) are the following three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and failure to join indispensable parties, filed by Oswego County (hereinafter “County Defendant”) ; (2) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, filed by New York State, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis, Benjamin Conlon, Richard Brazell, Maureen Leary, and Andrea Rhonda Miller (hereinafter “State Defendants”) ; and (3) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, filed by Op–Tech Environmental Services and William Simpson (hereinafter “Corporate Defendants”) . For the reasons set forth below, County Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part; State Defendants' motion is granted; and Corporate Defendants' motion is granted.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUNDA. Plaintiff's Claims
On October 30, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 46.) Generally, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts claims against Defendants arising from the alleged ownership and operation of the Old City of Fulton Dump (hereinafter “City Dump”), located at 40 Airport Drive, Fulton New York (hereinafter “County Property”), which allegedly has discharged, and continues to discharge, pollutants, hazardous substances and hazardous waste into the water of the United States and onto the property of Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh and Flood Drive Properties, Inc. ( Id.)
More specifically, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts the following three claims by Plaintiffs Gail Murtaugh, Richard R. Murtaugh, and Murtaugh Recycling Corp. (“Murtaugh Plaintiffs”), against County Defendant and Defendant Grannis: (1) a claim of violation of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., based on the unlawful discharge of pollutants to an unnamed tributary of the Oswego River; (2) a claim of violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), based on the maintenance of an “open dump,” which negatively impacts Murtaugh Plaintiffs and their real property and business operations; and (3) a claim of violation of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), based on the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste contained on, at, or about the Old City of Fulton Dump (hereinafter “City Dump”) located at 40 Airport Drive, Fulton New York (hereinafter “County Property”). ( Id.)
In addition, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts the following claims by all Plaintiffs against County Defendant, Defendant New York State, and Defendant Grannis: (1) a claim of violation of 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), based on the releasing or threatened releasing of hazardous substances from, at, and about the City Dump; and (2) a state law claim for nuisance, based on the City Dump's discharge and release of leachate containing pollutants, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes onto the real property located at 180 Flood Drive in the Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York (hereinafter “the Murtaugh Property”) and the real property located at 170 Flood Drive, Town of Volney, Oswego County, New York (hereinafter the “Flood Property”). ( Id.)
Finally, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts the following five claims against certain State Defendants and all Corporate Defendants arising from their entry onto Plaintiffs' properties, and removal of certain materials: (1) a claim of violation of due process and unlawful search and seizure under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserted by all Plaintiffs against Defendants Conlon, Brazell, and Leary, and Corporate Defendants, based on those Defendants' entry onto Plaintiffs' properties and creation of an excavation, which lowered the water table and induced and enhanced the flow of leachate discharge from the upgradient City Dump; (2) a claim of violation of due process and unlawful search and seizure under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserted by Plaintiff Gail Murtaugh, individually and d/b/a Crosby Hill Auto Recycling Corp., against Defendant Leary and Corporate Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Cuomo
...that allegations of harm to a plaintiff's "business operations" may not form the basis of a due process claim. Murtaugh v. New York , 810 F.Supp.2d 446, 480 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that plaintiff's claim that defendants' actions effectively harmed plaintiff's business operations did not im......
-
33 Seminary LLC v. City of Binghamton
...them; and (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action.” Murtaugh v. New York, 810 F.Supp.2d 446, 485 (N.D.N.Y.2011) (citing, inter alia, Monahan v. N.Y. City Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir.2000)). The burden rests on the p......
-
Rehab. Support Servs., Inc. v. City of N.Y.
...should abstain from deciding the present case due to the ongoing Article 78 proceeding, see id. at 21; see also Murtaugh v. New York, 810 F. Supp. 2d 446, 464 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) ("A motion to dismiss based on the abstention doctrine is . . . considered as a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1......
-
33 Seminary LLC v. City of Binghamton
...them; and (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action." Murtaugh v. New York, 810 F.Supp.2d 446, 485 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing, inter alia, Monahan v. N.Y. City Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000)). The burden rests on the......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, OR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS.
...relief). (182) See Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52, 56-60 (2d Cir. 1999) (dismissing a CERCLA citizen suit); Martaugh v. New York, 810 F. Supp. 2d 446, 470 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (dismissing CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA (183) Martaugh, 810 F. Supp. 2d at 470. (184) E.g., Boise Cascade Corp. v. State e......