Nat'l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Gurov

• Decision Date: 31 January 2020
• Docket Number: 59,CA 19–01227
• Parties: In the Matter of NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Ivan GUROV, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

179 A.D.3d 1453

118 N.Y.S.3d 327 (Mem)

In the Matter of NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.Ivan GUROV, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondents.

59

CA 19–01227

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: January 31, 2020

LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY M. O'MARA, WILLIAMSVILLE (TIMOTHY M. O'MARA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (CRAIG A. LESLIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the order is stayed in accordance with the following memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent Ivan Gurov appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition and authorized petitioner to acquire an easement over his property. In appeal No. 2, respondents Emily R. Oprea and Grace R. Page, as trustees for the Roderick Family Trust, appeal from an order of the same court that, inter alia, granted the petition and authorized petitioner to acquire an easement over their property.

The outcome of these appeals hinges on, inter alia, the validity of the State of New York's denial of petitioner's application for a water quality certification (WQC) (see Matter of National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Schueckler, 167 A.D.3d 128, 129–139, 88 N.Y.S.3d 305 [4th Dept. 2018] ). The validity of that denial, however, is currently unclear and is being actively litigated in multiple proceedings before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Under these circumstances, and in the interest of judicial economy, we hold these cases and reserve decision pending determination of the validity of the denial of petitioner's application for a WQC (see Buffalo United Charter Sch. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 107 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 965 N.Y.S.2d 905 [4th Dept. 2013], lv dismissed 22 N.Y.3d 1082, 981 N.Y.S.2d 666, 4 N.E.3d 967 [2014] ). Furthermore, in the exercise of our discretion, we stay the orders appealed from pending our ultimate disposition of these appeals (see CPLR 5519[c] ; Sternberg v. New York Water Serv. Corp., 94 A.D.2d 723, 723, 462 N.Y.S.2d 609 [2d Dept. 1983] ).