Majority
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and (8) alleging, inter alia, that plaintiffs sought merely an advisory opinion. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on the same grounds raised in their motion in appeal No. 1 (Jones, 57 AD3d 1376 [2008]). We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. First, although the action sought a determination of plaintiffs’ rights upon the happening of a future event, that future event is not one that is “beyond the control of the parties” (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527 , 531 [1977]; see Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349 , 354 [1988]). Second, plaintiffs have raised a valid challenge under article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and thus a justiciable controversy exists (see Matter of Gordon v Rush, 299 AD2d 20 , 30 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 236 [2003]; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761 , 778 [1991]; see generally Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193 , 203 [1987]).
We further conclude, however, that plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on their amended complaint, for the reasons stated in our decision in appeal No. 1 (Jones 57 AD3d 1376 [2008]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Cases cited
- Jones v. Town of Carroll 57 AD3d 1376 p. 1380
- New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Carey 42 NY2d 527 at 531 p. 1380
- Cuomo v. Long Island Lighting Co. 71 NY2d 349 at 354 p. 1380
- Gordon v. Rush 299 AD2d 20 at 30 p. 1380
- Gordon v. Rush 100 NY2d 236 p. 1380
- Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk 77 NY2d 761 at 778 p. 1380
- Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. City of Albany 70 NY2d 193 at 203 p. 1380