Court Opinion

ID: 9945568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:11:21.8753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:32.239115
License: Public Domain

Matter of Streeter v New York City Dept. of Envtl.
                       Protection
               2024 NY Slip Op 30571(U)
                   February 16, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
          Docket Number: Index No. 268/2023
                Judge: Patria Frias-Colon
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:06 PM                                                                      INDEX NO. 268/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
              COUNTY OF KINGS                 Part 25
              HON. PATRIA FRIAS-COLÓN, J.S.C.
                                                                               X
              In the Matter of Application of                                         Index # 268/2023
              Michael Streeter,                                                       Cal. #s 45, 56A Mot. Seq. #s 1, 2

                                                        PETITIONER,                   DECISION/ORDER

              For Judgment pursuant to Article 78, CPLR,                              Recitation as per CPLR §§ 2219(a) and/or
                                                                                      3212(b) of papers considered on review of
                                                                                      this motion:
                                      -against-                                       NYSCEF Doc #s 13; 15; 31-35 by Petitioner
                                                                                      NYSCEF Doc #s 4-12; 16-30; 36 by Respondent
              New York City Department of Environmental Protection,

                                                        RESPONDENT.
                                                                                X

                Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument on July 26, 2023, pursuant to CPLR
         §§ 7804(b), 506(b), 510(1), 511 and Article 78, the Decision and Order on Petitioner’s Article 78 petition
         and Respondent’s motion to change venue, is as follows:

                 Petitioner’s Article 78 petition (motion sequence # 1) is DISMISSED and Respondent’s
         motion to change venue from Kings County to Queens County (motion sequence # 2) is DENIED.
         Petitioner’s Article 78 petition requested: (1) Respondent accept and pursue rejected complaint labeled
         2023-11637, or in the alternative to provide Petitioner with a summons form to self-prosecute said
         complaint; (2) Respondent cease to block valid complaint submissions when a vehicle has moved,
         regardless of whether the distance moved puts them in front of another address, and either pursue such
         complaints or allow the citizen to self-prosecute such complaints; (3) Respondent cease interfering
         with self-prosecutions of complaints where non-frivolous arguments can be made for their validity, as
         required by NYC Administrative Code § 24-182; (4) Respondent stop assisting transgressors in
         circumventing the law proven helpful to cleaning up the environment and improving quality of life of
         citizens of New York City; (5) Respondent not interfere with Petitioner’s and other citizens’
         constitutional right to clean air; (6) award Petitioner’s costs, disbursements, and expenses, including
         reasonable attorney fees; and (7) any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

         BACKGROUND

                This action involves §§ 24-163, 24-178, 24-180, and 24-182 of the Administrative Code of the
         City of New York, which pertain to violations for idling vehicles. Petitioner is a resident of Kings
         County and a self-described Citizen Reporter concerned about the effects of air pollution on his
         community.1 Respondent is the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
         which reviews complaints of alleged idling violations throughout New York City.2 On February 14,

          1
           NYSCEF Doc. # 15 at pg.’s 3-4.
          2
           Under Administrative Code § 24-182(a), a Citizen Reporter may submit a complaint to Respondent alleging that a truck
          or bus was idling in violation of Administrative Code § 24-163(a), and if Respondent successfully prosecutes the alleged
          violation, the Citizen Reporter is entitled to a statutory share of the penalty imposed and collected. See Administrative
          Code §§ 24-182(a) & 24-163(a); NYSCEF Doc. # 27 at pg. 9.

                                                                  1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:06 PM                                                                    INDEX NO. 268/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024
                                                                                                                Index # 268/2023

         2023, Petitioner recorded a vehicle continuously idling for over three minutes at two different spots,
         in short succession, on the same street (Willoughby Street between Albee Square West and Flatbush
         Avenue in Brooklyn).3 Petitioner submitted two complaints to the Respondent’s “Idling Portal,” where
         the second complaint submitted was automatically rejected and flagged as a duplicate.4 Petitioner then
         emailed Respondent and asked for his second complaint to be processed, arguing that it was a new
         and separate violation from the first complaint.5 Respondent rejected the request and stated that it was
         one violation in the same location.6 On April 4, 2023, Petitioner emailed Respondent and requested to
         self-prosecute the second complaint, and Respondent replied that the second complaint was
         automatically blocked and deemed a duplicate, therefore neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent
         could pursue the complaint.7

                 Petitioner then brought this Article 78 petition, arguing that Respondent should prosecute the
         complaint or allow Petitioner to self-prosecute the complaint, that Respondent’s decision as to the
         Petitioner’s second complaint was arbitrary and capricious, as it ignored applicable decisional law of
         the OATH Appeals Unit and provided no reasonable rationale for its decision, and that Respondents
         determination violated Petitioner’s right to clean air and a healthful environment under Article I, § 19
         of the New York Constitution (“Green Amendment”).8

                Respondent opposes, arguing that its determination to identify Petitioner’s second complaint
         as “duplicative” was reasonable and rational, that Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus because he
         does not have a clear right to the relief requested, and that Respondent’s determination has not violated
         any environmental statute, nor is it subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Environmental Rights
         Amendment.9

         DISCUSSION

                 As an initial matter, Respondent’s motion for change of venue is DENIED (mot. seq. # 2).
         Pursuant to CPLR § 506(b), a “proceeding against a body or officer shall be commenced in any
         county…where respondent made the determination complained of…or where the material events
         otherwise took place.” (Emphasis added). Respondent argues that, because their determination to
         block Petitioner’s second idling complaint as duplicative occurred in Queens County, that is the proper
         venue for this action. However, Petitioner’s observation of the idling truck, resulting in the first
         complaint and being informed that the second complaint was duplicative all occurred in Kings County.
         Therefor Kings County is the proper venue for Petitioner’s Article 78 proceeding. See Flash Sec.
         Servs. v. City of New York, 36 Misc. 3d 1213[A], 2012 NY Slip. Op. 51266[U] (Sup. Ct., Kings County
         2012).

                Now turning to the Petitioner’s Article 78 petition (mot. seq. # 2), which for the reasons
         outlined below, is denied.

          3
           A review of NYSCEF Doc. # 26, which are pictures of the position of the truck, demonstrated that the truck moved about
          two car-lengths forward (see NYSCEF Doc. # 26 at pg. 3).
          4
            Id.
          5
            Id. at pg.’s 6-7.
          6
            Id. at pg. 7.
          7
            Id.
          8
            NYSCEF Doc. # 15 at pg.’s 1-10.
          9
            NYSCEF Doc. # 27 at pg.’s 10-11.
                                                                    2

                                                                 2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:06 PM                                                                  INDEX NO. 268/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024
                                                                                                              Index # 268/2023

                 The scope of judicial review in an Article 78 proceeding is limited to whether a governmental
         agency’s determination was made in violation of lawful procedures, whether it was arbitrary or
         capricious, or whether it was affected by an error of law.10 In reviewing an administrative agency’s
         determination, courts must ascertain whether there is a rational basis for the agency’s action or
         whether it is arbitrary and capricious.11 Judicial deference and substantial weight must be accorded
         to the determination where the agency’s determination is based on detailed methods derived from
         legislation, is within an area of the agency’s expertise and is amply supported by the record.12 The
         Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the decision-making agency, as it must only ascertain
         whether the agency’s determination was rationally based. Flacke at 363; Halloran, 172 A.D.3d at
         717. Additionally, an agency is to be afforded wide deference in the interpretation of its regulation
         and, to a lesser extent, in its construction of governing statutory law. Vink v. New York State Div. of
         Hous. And Community Renewal, 285 A.D.2d 203, 210 (1st Dept. 2001). However, an agency cannot
         engraft additional requirements or assume additional powers not contained in the enabling
         legislation. Id. at 210; Matter of Schenkman v. Dole, 148 A.D.2d 116 (1st Dept. 1989).

                 Under Administrative Code § 24-178(a)(3)(ii), a penalty can be imposed once per day when
         there is a violation of Administrative Code § 24-163(a). Respondent has interpreted and OATH has
         held that these sections of the Administrative Code, taken together, only allow OATH to impose one
         penalty per day for an idling violation involving a vehicle idling on the same block.13 As such,
         Respondent’s policy on this matter was rational, since accepting multiple complaints for idling
         violations that would be dismissed as duplicative would waste administrative resources. See Welde v.
         NY City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2024 NY Slip Op 30024(U) (Sup. Ct., NY County 2024).

                 Regarding Petitioner’s mandamus relief, he is not entitled to such relief. “Mandamus is an
         extraordinary remedy that, by definition, is available only in limited circumstances.” Willows Condo.
         Ass’n v. Town of Greenburgh, 153 A.D.3d 535 (2d Dept. 2017) (quoting Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61
         N.Y.2d 525 [1984]). Mandamus may compel a governmental entity or officer to perform a ministerial
         duty but may not compel an act that involves an exercise of judgment or discretion. Id. at 536.
         However, a party seeking mandamus must show a clear and absolute right to the relief sought. County
         of Fulton v. State, 76 N.Y.2d 675 (1990). Here, Petitioner is not entitled to an Order that Respondent
         allow him to self-prosecute his complaints. In accordance with the policy that one violation is issued
         per occurrence per day, and per location, for all vehicles, Respondent notified Petitioner that the
         complaint was “duplicative” since the idling vehicle was in the same location14. Petitioner is not
         entitled to the other mandamus relief sought as Petitioner failed to show that he has a clear and absolute
         right to such relief.

                Finally, under the circumstances here, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent’s determination,
         to block his second idling complaint as “duplicative” violated his rights to clean air and a healthful
         environment under the Green Amendment is unavailing. The Green Amendment was ratified and

          10
             See CPLR § 7803(3); Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 230 (1974); Scherbyn v. BOCES, 77 N.Y.2d 753,
          757-758 (1991).
          11
             Matter of Murphy v. New York State Div. of Hous. And Community Renewal, 21 N.Y.3d 649 (2013); McCollum v. City
          of New York, 184 A.D.3d 838 (2d Dept. 2020).
          12
             Flacke v. Onondaga Landfill Sys., Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 355 (1987); Halloran v. NYC Employees’ Ret. Sys., 172 A.D.3d 715
          (2d Dept. 2019).
          13
             See DEP v. Coast Linen Services, Appeal No. 2200823 (September 29, 2022); see also NYC v. 187 Pinehurst Owners
          Corp., Appeal No. 1300221 (July 25, 2013).
          14
             See NYSCEF Doc. #s 24 & 26.
                                                                   3

                                                                3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2024 04:06 PM                                                                     INDEX NO. 268/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024
                                                                                                                Index # 268/2023

         added to the New York Bill of Rights November 2021 and became effective on January 1, 2022.15
         There have been at least two cases16 discussing the passed amendment, as its impact on environmental
         litigation in the State has only just begun. In Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. State, the Court found
         that a violation of the Green Amendment occurred where a landfill was “operated contrary to or in
         violation of current laws and regulations…”17 and that the landfill could “no longer be allowed to
         cause so much harm and impact so many people and go unchecked, without proper intervention from
         the State.”18 That case is distinguishable from the instant matter.

                 Here, Respondent’s determination to block Petitioner’s second idling complaint as duplicative
         was not “contrary to or in violation of current laws and regulations,” as found in Fresh Air. The Green
         Amendment’s legislative history confirms it was not intended to change existing laws,19 such that it
         allow this Court, in essence, to become the forum to modify the Administrative Code.20 While a key
         purpose of the Green Amendment’s passage is to address the issue of standing in environmental cases21
         and require municipal agencies to take appropriate action regarding the amendment’s impact on their
         decision-making processes, here Petitioner’s rights to clean air and a healthful environment were not
         violated by Respondent’s determination.

                  All other relief not expressly addressed herein is denied.

                  This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

         Date: February 16, 2024                                                 ___________________________
               Brooklyn, New York                                                Hon. Patria Frias-Colón, J.S.C.

          15
             See Article 1, § 19 of the New York State Constitution; Marte v. City of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 31198[U] (Sup. Ct., NY
          County 2023).
          16
             In Marte v. City of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 31198[U] (Sup. Ct., NY County 2023) residents of Manhattan challenged the
          construction of a housing development project through the Green Amendment; See also Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v.
          State, 2022 NY Slip Op 34429[U] (Sup. Ct., Monroe County 2022) where residents of Perinton, New York sought to
          modify the operation of a landfill through the Green Amendment).
          17
             Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 34429[U] at pg. 15.
          18
             Id. at pg. 17.
          19
             See NYSCEF Doc. # 30 at pg. 35 (N.Y. State Assembly Debate on the amendment).
          20
              Marte, 2023 NY Slip Op 31198[U] at pg. 8 (“A Court is not the right forum to, essentially, modify the state’s
          environmental regulatory scheme regarding consideration of proposals for developments…”).
          21
             Marte, 2023 NY Slip Op 31198[U] at pg. 6.
                                                                     4

                                                                  4 of 4
[* 4]