Overview
Attorneys
Representative Matters
Litigation, Mediation, and Dispute Law includes:
- Article 78 proceedings
- Citizen suits
- Cost recovery actions
- Natural resource damages
- Construction disputes
- Environmental litigation
- Permitting appeals and enforcement
Overview
Young/Sommer advocates vigorously for its clients whenever necessary. The firm has a successful track record representing our clients in a broad range of administrative, civil, and criminal matters, appearing before federal and state courts and a host of administrative agencies. We also regularly represent clients in arbitration and mediation proceedings. In all cases, our goal is help clients achieve their goals while taking the cost of litigation into account.
The following is a partial list of the firm’s litigation-related practice experience:
Article 78 Proceedings
Young/Sommer has commenced dozens of Article 78 proceedings challenging government actions relating to zoning, environmental permitting, SEQRA, and other matters. Young/Sommer has also defended dozens of Article 78 proceedings on behalf of local government.
Citizen Suits
The firm has commenced and defended citizen suits arising under various federal environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act.
Cost Recovery/Contribution Actions and Natural Resource Damages
Our attorneys have helped clients commence and defend cost recovery and contribution actions arising under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and have brought dozens of actions to obtain insurance coverage (including duty to defend) for environmental claims.
Construction Disputes
Young/Sommer has extensive experiences in construction-related litigation on behalf of both contractors and municipalities, addressing issues such as public bidding, prevailing wage, Wicks Law, performance bonds, delay damages, collection, warranties, design defects, etc.
Environmental Litigation
Young/Sommer has extensive experience in successfully defending nuisance (common law and public nuisance) claims against controversial facilities (e.g., foundries, sludge management, solid waste, race tracks, children’s camps).
Permitting Appeals and Enforcement
The firm regularly represents clients in permitting appeals before the Department of Environmental Conservation and other state and federal agencies. We defend clients accused of violating federal and state environmental laws. In that capacity, our attorneys have negotiated dozens of consent orders resolving a wide range of enforcement-related matters.
The firm’s Litigation, Mediation and Dispute Resolution practice group includes J. Michael Naughton.
The following Young/Sommer attorneys represent clients in this practice area.
Dean S. Sommer
Dean S. Sommer (Partner) concentrates on the litigation and/or negotiation of environmental and toxic tort matters addressing the release of hazardous substances, hazardous waste, petroleum and solid waste into the environment. Chambers USA, in its 2004 Guide, stated that Mr. Sommer is “a noted litigator” whose “expertise is on show in Superfund, RCRA and CWA issues.”
Kevin M. Young
Kevin M. Young has been practicing environmental law for over 28 years. Mr. Young assists clients in achieving their business and municipal objectives while complying with environmental and land use regulations. He also serves as counsel to over 20 municipalities, numerous manufacturing facilities and developers.
J. Michael Naughton
J. Michael Naughton is a partner in the firm, and has practiced as a litigator for over 25 years. He began his career in New York City and moved to Albany in 1987. Mr. Naughton was a partner at the law firm of Shanley, Sweeney Reilly & Allen, P.C. before joining Young/Sommer LLC in 2005.
Joseph F. Castiglione
Joseph F. Castiglione primarily practices in the areas of commercial, contract, municipal, land-use, administrative and environmental law, with his practice primarily dedicated to litigation in State and Federal courts.
Sue H.R. Adler
Sue H.R. Adler, of Counsel since 2007, has handled complex litigation in federal and State court for the past 30 years. Ms. Adler has extensive experience in all aspects of civil litigation, including litigation strategy and risk assessment, pretrial discovery, motion practice, trials, and appeals.
Kristin Carter Rowe
Kristin Carter Rowe (Of Counsel) has extensive litigation experience having represented and counseled individual, corporate and municipal clients in all areas of civil litigation on both the state and federal levels.
Lawrence R. Schillinger
Bar Admissions New York, 1984 U.S. District Court Northern District of New York, 1992 Education University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, North… Read More
Crystal Run Newco, LLC v. United Pet Supply, Inc., 70 A.D.3d 1418 (4th Dept. 2010)
This a commercial landlord-tenant case in which the appellate court reversed the trial court, and granted the landlord summary judgment with respect to its claim… Read More
Dever v. DeVito, 84 A.D.3d 1539 (3d Dept. 2011)
The firm represented the defendants in this residential property dispute involving private covenants and restrictions in a homeowner’s association. In this case, a neighbor attempted… Read More
Fleming v. New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 66 A.D.3d 777 (2d Dept. 2009)
The firm represented the developer-respondent, RFB, LLC. RFB and its contract-seller Kent Acres Development Co.,Ltd., who proposed to construct an approximately 280 residential condominium development… Read More
Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007 WL 1851784 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), reversed, 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009)
As the State moves to set the stage for high speed rail service, the rights of property owners whose access rights are affected by the… Read More
Kent Acres Development Co., Ltd., v. City of New York, 41 AD3d 542 (2d Dept. 2007)
The firm represented Lexington Realty Development Corp. and RFB, LLC in obtaining a judgment directing the Town of Kent to allow the Developers to participate… Read More
Macris v. Matta, Putnam County Supreme Court Index No. 1354-2011
The firm represented Defendant homeowners, in an action commenced by their downstream neighbors for property damages stemming from the alleged flooding of their property, blaming… Read More
Masterpage Communications, Inc. v. Town of Olive, 418 F.Supp.2d 66 (N.D.N.Y. 2005)
This case involved a town’s refusal to permit a telecommunications and cell tower facility. J. Michael Naughton—prior to joining Young/Sommer LLC—represented the landowner and succeeded… Read More
Matter of Boro Recycling, Inc., v. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, et al., Decision and Order dated April 8, 2011 (S.Ct. Kings Co. 2011) (Kings Co. Index No. 22559-10)
The firm represented Boro Recycling, Inc. (“Boro”). For approximately 26 years, Boro had been providing services exclusively to “dealers” and “distributors” of beer and carbonated… Read More
Matter of Stratis Contracting Corp., v. Town of Lewisboro, et al., 78 AD3d 1188, 911 NYS2d 667 (2d Dept 2010)
Pyramid Walden Co. v. The Buffalo Unit, LLC, 48 A.D.3d 1089 (4th Dept. 2008), affirming 2007 WL 7034890 (N.Y. Sup. 2007)
In this landlord-tenant case involving a shopping center lease, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in the landlord’s favor. The… Read More
Village of Coxsackie v. Veolia Water North America – North East, LLC, Slip. Copy 2007, WL2667460 (N.D.N.Y 2007)
The firm represented the Village of Coxsackie (the “Village”) in a successful federal court action seeking to enforce a contract against a company hired to… Read More
Village of Delhi, et al. v. Town of Delhi, et al., 72 A.D.3d 1476 (3d Dept 2010)
The firm represented the Town of Delhi. The Village of Delhi commenced a combined CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment proceeding against the Town of… Read More
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of North Elba, 238 A.D.2d 93 (3d Dept. 1998)
This is a landmark case in which a municipality’s right to control large scale development was recognized. J. Michael Naughton represented the Town of North… Read More
Worcester Creameries Corp. v. City of New York, 54 AD3d 87 (3d Dept. 2008)
The firm represented a Delaware County milk processing facility in its successful effort to compel New York City (the “City”) to pay for regulatory upgrades… Read More