Sherwood Medical Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Mikoll, J. P. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the finding that petitioner’s release of 198 ethylene oxide (hereinafter EtO) emissions into the atmosphere constituted separate violations rather than a continuous violation of ECL 71-2103 (former [1]) was rational. "[Respondent Department of Environmental Conservation], as a State agency, has broad powers to construe the statutes and regulations it administers and should be upheld unless such construction is unreasonable or irrational” (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Williams, 127 AD2d 512, 513; see, Matter of Howard v…