Pank v. Village of Canajoharie
| Decision Date | 03 August 2000 |
| Citation | 712 N.Y.S.2d 210,275 A.D.2d 508 |
| Parties | CARSTEN J. PANK et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>VILLAGE OF CANAJOHARIE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
In 1995 defendant Village of Canajoharie constructed and commenced operation of a storage pad for vegetable waste biosolids on land owned by defendants Robert R. Harris and Kathleen Harris (hereinafter collectively referred to as Harris). The vegetable waste biosolids came from a baby food manufacturing facility in the Village of Canajoharie, Montgomery County. The Village adds nitrogen and a synthetic polymer to the biosolids prior to transportation to the storage pad. Harris spread the mixture as fertilizer on his farm land.[*] In January and April 1996, it is uncontroverted that there were escapes of biosolids from the storage pad area. Plaintiffs own various parcels of land, predominantly used for farming purposes, located northwest of the storage pad. In this action, plaintiffs assert causes of action sounding in negligence and private nuisance contending that the operation of the storage pad and spills of biosolids relative thereto contaminated their only source of potable water and created noxious odors resulting in the diminishment of the value of their real property.
In March 1999, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' application pursuant to CPLR 3120 for permission to enter upon defendant's land and storage pad to conduct a tracer study designed to establish a ground water connection between the storage pad and the contamination of plaintiffs' water well. Shortly after the tracer study was completed, the Village moved for summary judgment asserting that the storage pad was not responsible for the high nitrate levels which had been found in plaintiffs' well. Harris cross-moved for summary judgment on the same basis. Plaintiffs opposed the motions and cross-moved for permission to conduct an additional tracer study, as well as a nonparty deposition of an attorney from the Department of Environmental Conservation who had authored a letter which opined that the storage pad did not have significant impact on the surrounding environment. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' cross motion and held the respective defendants' motions for summary judgment in abeyance pending completion of the additional discovery. Both the Village and Harris appeal from this order.
The dispositive issue is whether Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs' cross motion for additional discovery based on CPLR 3212 (f). Since we find no basis upon which to disturb Supreme Court's exercise of discretion, we affi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weydman Elec., Inc. v. Joint Sch. Constr. Bd.
...an evidentiary showing supporting this conclusion, mere speculation or conjecture being insufficient” (Pank v. Village of Canajoharie, 275 A.D.2d 508, 509, 712 N.Y.S.2d 210 ). Plaintiff failed to make the necessary evidentiary showing.In light of our determination, we do not consider plaint......
-
Arthur Brundage Inc. v. Morris
...with the Morrises and the process by which it secured many of plaintiff's customers and employees ( Pank v. Village of Canajoharie, 275 A.D.2d 508, 510, 712 N.Y.S.2d 210 [2000] ; see Svoboda v. Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 20 A.D.3d 805, 806, 799 N.Y.S.2d 602 [2005] ). Finally, alt......
-
Louie v. Chiu, 2008 NY Slip Op 31966(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 7/3/2008)
...motion is in the sole possession of the moving party, the summary judgment motion can and should be denied. Pank v. Village of Canajoharie, 275 A.D.2d 508, 509 (3rd Dept. 2000). Additionally, the court must consider all papers submitted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. M......
-
166 Fifth Avenue LLC v. 168 Fifth Avenue Realty Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 31811(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/19/2008)
...motion is in the sole possession of the moving party, the summary judgment motion can and should be denied. Pank v. Village of Canajoharie, 275 A.D.2d 508, 509 (3d Dept. 2000). Additionally, the court must consider all papers submitted in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ma......