DVC Indus., Inc. v. Flacke, 86 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1982). · Go Syfert
DVC Indus., Inc. v. Flacke, 86 A.D.2d 892 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 892 reversing the trial court’s vacation of an arbitration award and explaining that “filing of the notice of intent, while advisable, is not mandatory in light of the use of the permissive ‘may’1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • Unifirst Corp. v. Stronger Collision Ctr., LLC, 336 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).published
    (reversing the trial court’s vacation of an arbitration award and explaining that “filing of the notice of intent, while advisable, is not mandatory in light of the use of the permissive ‘may’)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of DVC Industries, Inc.
v.
Robert F. Flacke, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 22, 1982.
Published opinion
86 A.D.2d 892
1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15553
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated December 23, 1980, which assessed a penalty of $18,000 against petitioner for violations of conditions contained in petitioner’s State pollution discharge elimination system permit, and enjoined petitioner from continuing discharges into the ground water of the State in violation of its permit. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs. The assessment of an $18,000 penalty against petitioner and enjoining it from continuing discharges into the ground water was not arbitrary but based on substantial evidence within the record. There was evidence in the record of more than 18 separate violations. We would note, however, that it would be preferable for the respondent to set forth with specificity the fine for each individual violation. Petitioner had not complied[*893] with the schedule of compliance for effluent limitations contained in its State pollutant discharge elimination system permit. It had violated all of the discharge limitations of the permit. Moreover, though petitioner had ample notice of these violations, on at least eight occasions, no action was taken to correct these violations. Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.