Majority
Here, the respondent’s determination that the petitioners violated the Freshwater Wetlands Act (see ECL art 24) by performing certain activities on land officially designated as a freshwater wetland and on adjacent land within 100 feet thereof, without the required permit, is supported by substantial evidence. In addition, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that the respondent’s determination to order the petitioners to perform restoration to the extent possible “is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” (Matter of Waldren v Town of Islip, 6 NY3d 735 , 736 [2005], quoting Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 , 237 [1974]; see Matter of Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897 , 899 [2007]).
The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Carni, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights 45 NY2d 176 at 179 p. 686
- Bradley Corporate Park v. Crotty 39 AD3d 632 at 634 p. 686
- Furey v. County of Suffolk 105 AD2d 41 at 43 p. 686
- Waldren v. Town of Islip 6 NY3d 735 at 736 p. 686
- Pell v. Board of Education 34 NY2d 222 at 237 p. 686