New York Site Development Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation

• Decision Date: 31 July 1995
• Parties: In the Matter of NEW YORK SITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, et al., etc., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 335

630 N.Y.S.2d 335

217 A.D.2d 699

In the Matter of NEW YORK SITE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, et al., etc., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 31, 1995.

Russell S. Burman, New York City, for appellants.

Dennis C. Vacco, Atty. Gen., New York City (Oymin Chin, of counsel), for respondents.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, SANTUCCI and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated April 14, 1992, inter alia, finding that the petitioners operated a transfer station without a permit and fining them $1,000,000, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated April 27, 1993, which denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and directed that the $1,000,000 fine is payable by the petitioners individually, jointly, and severally.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In 1990, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (hereinafter DEC) served the petitioners, New York Site Development Corporation, New York Recycling Corporation, and their president, Benjamin Rastelli, Sr., with a Notice of Hearing and Complaint alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners had illegally constructed and operated a solid waste transfer station, a recyclables handling and recovery facility, and a construction and demolition debris landfill in violation 6 NYCRR part 360 and ECL article 27. Although each answered, the petitioners walked out of the scheduled hearing claiming that action on the instant complaint was foreclosed pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Ultimately, the charges against the petitioners were sustained and they were fined $1,000,000 (jointly and severally). On appeal, the petitioners press their arguments concerning res judicata and collateral estoppel and contend that the fine imposed was disproportionate to the offense and a violation of due process. Further, the petitioner Benjamin Rastelli, Sr., argues that liability for the fine was impermissibly imposed upon him in his individual capacity.

Res judicata prevents a party, or one in privity with it, from relitigating issues necessarily determined on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior action (see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328). Collateral estoppel, a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata, "precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same" (Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 478 N.Y.S.2d 823, 467 N.E.2d 487; Tamily v. General Contracting Corp., 210 A.D.2d 564, 620 N.Y.S.2d 506). A party invoking either the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel must show that the critical issue in the instant action was necessarily decided in the prior action and that the party against whom estoppel is sought has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that issue (see, Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., supra, ...