Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County

Apr 4, 2005
Versions:17 A.D.3d 371
793 N.Y.S.2d 78
2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3546
stone The user wants a legal document converted to semantic HTML. I need to process two pages of a court reporter (New York Reports or similar). **Page 1 analysis:** - Header: 371 - First text: Continuation of a previous opinion. “The petitioners’ remaining contentions... concur.” - New case starts: “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v SUFFOLK COUNTY et al., Appellants. [793 NYS2d 78]” - Procedural summary: Hybrid proceeding... review Resolution No. 1244-2002... Suffolk County... (Baisley, J.)... - Orders: “Ordered that...” - Decision text: “The Supreme Court improperly amended...” - Page ends mid-sentence: “(see” **Page 2 analysis:** - Header: 372 - Continues: “Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne...” - End of first opinion: “...Schmidt, J.P, Goldstein, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.” - New case starts: “In the Matter of STAR BOXING, INC., Respondent, v DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORP., Appellant. [792 NYS2d 564]” According to the instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In Page 1, there is a snippet of a previous case. Then a new case “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER“. This case ends on Page 2. Then another new case “In the Matter of STAR BOXING” starts on Page 2. I should convert the “MAIN opinion” which is “In the Matter of Peconic Baykeeper“. **Case 1: Peconic Baykeeper** - Name: In the Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Suffolk County et al., Appellants. - Short Name: Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County - Citation: 793 NYS2d 78 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Second Department, implied by judges Schmidt, Goldstein, Crane, Fisher) - Date: Not explicitly given for the appellate decision, but the lower court judgment was May 17, 2004. Actually, looking at the layout, this is the Second Department of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The date isn‘t on the page snippet. I‘ll omit the date if not found. - Docket: Not provided. **Structure:** - `` - `
` for case info. - Body starts with “In a hybrid proceeding...” - Orders. - Opinion text. - Page break. - Opinion finishes on 372. Wait, looking at the snippet at the top of 371: “The petitioners’ remaining contentions... concur.” This belongs to a previous case. Then “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER...” is the full case. Then “In the Matter of STAR BOXING...” starts. I will convert the “Peconic Baykeeper” case as it‘s the first complete one. **Metadata for Peconic Baykeeper:** - Case Name: In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v SUFFOLK COUNTY et al., Appellants. - Short Name: Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County - Citation: 793 NYS2d 78 - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (likely 2d Dept) -> N.Y. App. Div. - Date: Unknown (not on page) **Citations in Peconic Baykeeper:** - CPLR article 78 -> `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. 7801“` (Article 78 is often cited as N.Y. C.P.L.R. art. 78) - ECL art 8 -> `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law art. 8“` (SEQRA) - DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984] -> `` - Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980] -> `` - Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644 [1996] -> `` - Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD2d 936, 937 [1994] -> `` - Mastrangelo v County of Nassau, 102 AD2d 814, 815 [1984] -> `` **Steps:** 1. Skip the text before “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER“. 2. Create Case Info details. 3. Start page 371. 4. Process procedural text and orders. 5. Process opinion body. 6. Handle page break to 372. 7. End after the concurrence for Peconic Baykeeper. **Refining Metadata:** - Citation: 793 NYS2d 78 (from bracketed text) - Court: Schmidt, Goldstein, Crane and Fisher, JJ. are Appellate Division, Second Department judges circa 2005. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. **Refining Law Citations:** - CPLR article 78: jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. art. 78” - State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8): jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law art. 8” **Parsing text:** Page 371: “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v SUFFOLK COUNTY et al., Appellants.” “[793 NYS2d 78]” “In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review Resolution No. 1244-2002 of the Suffolk County Legislature, which, upon determining that the extension of a 2002 Vector Control Plan into the year 2003 constituted a Type II action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8), approved the extension, and an action, inter alia, to enjoin the Suffolk County Department of Public Works, Division of Vector Control, from performing work under the 2002 Vector Control Plan in 2003, Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Legislature, Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality, Suffolk County Department of Public Works and Dominic Ninvaggi appeal from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered May 17, 2004, which amended the petition sua sponte “to include the 2004 extension” of the 2002 Vector Control Plan, inter alia, granted the petition to the extent of annulling the determination that the extension constituted a Type II action and enjoining them from commencing or continuing work under the 2002 Vector Control Plan, and (2) an order of the same court dated July 9, 2004, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the petition.” “Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the petition is denied, and the hybrid proceeding and action is dismissed; and it is further,” “Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,” “Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the judgment; and it is further,” “Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.” “The Supreme Court improperly amended the petition, sua sponte, “to include the 2004 extension” of the 2002 Vector Control Plan (cf. DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that the hybrid proceeding and action involving the 2002 Vector Control Plan was not academic (see” Page 372: “Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Moreover, in light of the implementation of a different Vector Control Plan in 2005, the exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply (see Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644 [1996]; Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD2d 936, 937 [1994]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding and action as academic (see Mastrangelo v County of Nassau, 102 AD2d 814, 815 [1984]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.” **Specific check on “Star Boxing“:** This is a second full case. Name: In the Matter of STAR BOXING, INC., Respondent, v DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORP., Appellant. Citation: 792 NYS2d 564 Court: Westchester County Supreme Court order appealed to App Div 2nd Dept. Actually, the prompt says “multi-opinion documents... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case“. Usually, the “Main” opinion refers to the first complete one if there are multiple. “Peconic Baykeeper” is complete. “Star Boxing” is also mostly on the page but cuts off at the very end of page 2 (“see Matter of Hehl v Government Empls.“). Actually, looking at the layout, “Peconic Baykeeper” is the primary content of these two pages. I‘ll provide Peconic Baykeeper. One more look: “Star Boxing” starts mid-page 372. If I stop at Peconic Baykeeper, it‘s safer. But wait, if both are “main” opinions? Usually, the instructions imply selecting the primary one or the first complete one. “Peconic Baykeeper” is the first full case. **Citations in text:** - `CPLR article 78`: `CPLR article 78` - `State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8)`: `State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8)` - `DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984]`: `DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984]` - `Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]`: `Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]` - `Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644 [1996]`: `Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644 [1996]` - `Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD2d 936, 937 [1994]`: `Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD 2d 936, 937 [1994]` (Note OCR error AD 2d -> AD2d) - `Mastrangelo v County of Nassau, 102 AD2d 814, 815 [1984]`: `Mastrangelo v County of Nassau, 102 AD2d 814, 815 [1984]` **Star Boxing metadata (if including):** - Name: In the Matter of STAR BOXING, INC., Respondent, v DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORP., Appellant. - Short Name: Star Boxing, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp. - Citation: 792 NYS2d 564 - Docket: N/A - Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Bellatoni, J. was lower court) - Date: Not shown. - Citation `CPLR article 75`: `CPLR article 75` - Citation `CPLR 7502 (a)`: `CPLR 7502 (a)` - Citation `CPLR 304`: `CPLR 304` - Citation `CPLR 403 [b]`: `CPLR 403 [b]` - Citation `CPLR 403 (c)`: `CPLR 403 (c)` - Citation `CPLR 311`: `CPLR 311` - Citation `Matter of Hehl v Government Empls.`: `Matter of Hehl v Government Empls.` (at end of page 372). I will convert both full opinions found on the pages, or just the first complete one? The prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion... Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Peconic Baykeeper starts on page 371 and finishes on page 372. It is the “Main” one for this snippet. Star Boxing is the second one and it isn‘t complete (it ends mid-citation on page 372). So I will only convert Peconic Baykeeper. Wait, Star Boxing is almost complete on the page, but ends mid-sentence. “the motion to dismiss the proceeding should have been granted (see Matter of Hehl v Government Empls.” That is a clear cutoff. I will only convert Peconic Baykeeper. **Refining Case Name for Peconic Baykeeper:** In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v SUFFOLK COUNTY et al., Appellants. shortName=“Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County” **Page 371 OCR corrections:** - “exten sion” -> “extension” - “peti tion” -> “petition” - “ap peal” -> “appeal” **Page 372 OCR corrections:** - “ap ply” -> “apply” - “Trust ees” -> “Trustees” One detail: Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Fisher, JJ. are listed at the end of the opinion text too. Actually, at the end of the summary it says “Schmidt, J.P, Goldstein, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.” This is a summary + memorandum. Wait, looking closely at the image for 371: The top line “The petitioners’ remaining contentions... concur.” is the end of the previous case. Then a horizontal bar. Then “In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER...“. Then a summary of the case facts and appeal. Then “Ordered that...” lines. Then the actual Memorandum starts: “The Supreme Court improperly amended...” The memorandum continues on 372 and ends with “concur.” Then another horizontal bar. Then “In the Matter of STAR BOXING...“. So Peconic Baykeeper is the full case here. Case Name: In the Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Suffolk County et al., Appellants. Short Name: Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County Citation: 793 NYS2d 78 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: unknown ```html Case Information In the Matter of PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., et al., Respondents, v SUFFOLK COUNTY et al., Appellants. 793 NYS2d 78 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York ``` Wait, the citation 793 NYS2d 78 is provided. I‘ll include it. I‘ll omit the date as it‘s not present. Let‘s begin. **Pre-Opinion content:** Summary/Held section: “In a hybrid proceeding... denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the petition.” Orders: “Ordered that...” **Opinion Body:** “The Supreme Court improperly amended...” Wait, the horizontal bar on 372 after Peconic Baykeeper‘s “concur.” signals the end. I will stop after “...Fisher, JJ., concur.” **Law Citations check:** - CPLR article 78: jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. art. 78” - State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8): jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law art. 8” - DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984]: case=“DiMauro v. Metro. Suburban Bus Auth.“, cite=“105 A.D.2d 236“, pinpoint=“240“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“1984” Page 372: - Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]: case=“Hearst Corp. v. Clyne“, cite=“50 N.Y.2d 707“, pinpoint=“714“, court=“N.Y.“, date=“1980” - Matter of Many v Village of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trustees, 234 AD2d 643, 644 [1996]: case=“Many v. Vill. of Sharon Springs Bd. of Trs.“, cite=“234 A.D.2d 643“, pinpoint=“644“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“1996” - Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD2d 936, 937 [1994]: case=“Schulz v. State“, cite=“200 A.D.2d 936“, pinpoint=“937“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“1994” - Mastrangelo v County of Nassau, 102 AD2d 814, 815 [1984]: case=“Mastrangelo v. Cnty. of Nassau“, cite=“102 A.D.2d 814“, pinpoint=“815“, court=“N.Y. App. Div.“, date=“1984” Final check on page markers. Start of 371: `` Start of 372: `` Text: “The Supreme Court improperly amended the petition, sua sponte, “to include the 2004 extension” of the 2002 Vector Control Plan (cf. DiMauro v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 AD2d 236, 240 [1984]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that the hybrid proceeding and action involving the 2002 Vector Control Plan was not academic (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).” Actually, looking at the image, “see” is at the end of 371. The case name starts on 372. So: `...was not academic (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).` Wait, “Moreover, in light of... mootness doctrine did not apply (see Matter of Many...)” The words “ap ply” are split in OCR but looking at the image it‘s “apply” on the second line. OCR says “ap ply” but image shows “apply” on one line? No, “ap-” at end of line 2, “ply” at start of line 3. OCR: “did not ap ply” Image: “did not ap- [newline] ply” So I rejoin: “did not apply” Same for “Trustees“: OCR “Trust ees“, Image “Trust- [newline] ees“. Rejoin: “Trustees“. One more: “extension” on p 371. OCR “exten sion“. Image: “exten- [newline] sion“. Rejoin: “extension“. “petition” on p 371. OCR “peti tion“. Image: “peti- [newline] tion“. Rejoin: “petition“. “appeal” on p 371. OCR “ap peal“. Image: “ap- [newline] peal“. Rejoin: “appeal“. Court metadata: The case header does not name the court, but the judges are 2nd Dept. The citation is NYS2d which is a reporter for all NY courts. The “Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.)” is the lower court. The appellate court is usually the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Given the judges, it‘s the 2nd Dept. I‘ll use `court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. Case name for Peconic: `In the Matter of Peconic Baykeeper, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Suffolk County et al., Appellants.` Short name: `Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County` Wait, the prompt asks for a “MAIN opinion“. Star Boxing is also a main opinion in this text. It has a full caption and summary. It only stops because the document provided stops. However, Peconic Baykeeper is completely contained. I will provide Peconic Baykeeper. One detail: The text before Peconic Baykeeper is “The petitioners’ remaining contentions... concur.” This is clearly partial content from a previous case. I must skip it. “Star Boxing” is also a complete case on these pages *until the end of the input*. But it‘s truncated at the end of page 2. Peconic is whole. I‘ll do Peconic. Wait, looking at the instructions for Multi-Opinion Documents: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Since Star Boxing is truncated at the end, Peconic is the only one with a *full* opinion body available. One law citation detail: CPLR 403 (c), CPLR 311, etc in Star Boxing. I won‘t be doing Star Boxing. Final check on Peconic citation 793 NYS2d 78. Inside ``: “In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78...” “...pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8)...” Wait, “ECL art 8” is the cite within the parens. `State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8)` Wait, “Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 200 AD 2d 936, 937 [1994]” The OCR has a space in “AD 2d“. The image has “AD2d“. I will fix it. Let‘s go.