| Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v Town of Middlefield |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03148 [106 AD3d 1170] |
| May 2, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Cooperstown Holstein Corporation, Appellant, v Town ofMiddlefield, Respondent. |
—[*1] Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP, Albany (John J. Henry of counsel), forrespondent and Town of Ulysses and others, amici curiae. Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for New York Farm Bureau, amicus curiae. Sidley Austin, LLP, Washington, D.C. (Joseph R. Guerra of counsel), for AmericanPetroleum Institute and others, amici curiae. Levene, Gouldin & Thompson, LLP, Binghamton (Scott R. Kurkoski of counsel),for Business Council of New York State, Inc. and others, amici curiae. Susan J. Kraham, Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc., New York City, forVicki Been and others, amici curiae. Nancy S. Marks, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City (KatherineSinding of counsel), for Catskill Mountainkeeper and others, amici curiae. Tooher & Barone LLP, Albany (John L. Barone of counsel), for A&E Management& Contracting, Inc., and others, amici curiae.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cerio, J.), entered August8, 2012 in Otsego County, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declared that defendant's zoninglaw was not preempted [*2]by the Oil, Gas and SolutionMining Law.
In June 2011, defendant enacted a new zoning law which, among other things,categorized all oil, gas and solution mining and drilling as prohibited land uses within theTown of Middlefield, Otsego County. Plaintiff, a corporation which owns oil and gasleases for parcels of real property located within the Town, commenced this actionseeking a declaration that the zoning law was preempted by the Oil, Gas and SolutionMining Law (see ECL 23-0301 et seq. [hereinafter OGSML]). Followingjoinder of issue, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint. Additionally, various groups moved for,and were granted, leave to file amicus curiae briefs.[FN*]Concluding that the zoning law was not preempted by the supersession clause of theOGSML (see ECL 23-0303 [2]), Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion andgranted defendant's cross motion. After plaintiff unsuccessfully moved to renew itsmotion based upon newly discovered legislative material (see CPLR 2221 [e]), ajudgment was issued dismissing the complaint and declaring that the zoning law wasvalid and not preempted by the OGSML. Plaintiff appeals.
As in Matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v Town of Dryden (108AD3d 25 [2013] [decided herewith]), plaintiff hereargues that the OGSML preempts a municipality's authority to enact local land use lawsprohibiting oil, gas and solution mining or drilling activities within its borders. For thereasons set forth in Matter of Norse Energy Corp. USA v Town of Dryden, wefind plaintiff's claim to be without merit and affirm Supreme Court's judgment declaringthat defendant's zoning law is valid.
Stein, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: Several interestedgroups were also granted permission by this Court to file an amicus curiae brief onappeal (see 2012 NY Slip Op 91275[U] [2012]; 2012 NY Slip Op 90486[U][2012]; 2012 NY Slip Op 89959[U] [2012]; 2012 NY Slip Op 89414[U] [2012]; seealso Matter of Norse Energy Corp., USA v Town of Dryden, 108 AD3d25, 28 n 4 [2013] [decided herewith]).