Full text
Frank Alberti v. Eastman Kodak Company, Appellant Erica Blaho v. Eastman Kodak Company, Appellant Harold Dack v. Eastman Kodak Company, Appellant Steven Small v. Eastman Kodak Company, Appellant Gary Sullivan v. Eastman Kodak Company
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e. The allegation that defendant violated 6 NYCRR 211.2 is a sufficient predicate for an action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Ruotolo v State of New York, 83 NY2d 248; Phalen v Kane, 192 AD2d 186; Costantini v Benedetto, 190 AD2d 888).
We decline to adopt the reasoning of Supreme Court in Ramos v Doesn’t Matter Realty Corp. (153 Mise 2d 80) that a statute or regulation that merely codifies a common-law duty cannot serve as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. In any event, 6 NYCRR 211.2 is not a mere codification of common-law nuisance.
We reject defendant’s further argument that 6 NYCRR 1023 211.2 is too vague to provide the basis for a cause of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e (see, Delford Indus. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 126 Misc 2d 355). Defendant’s remaining argument, that the Air Pollution Control Act and its corresponding regulations do not create a private right of action, is raised for the first time on appeal.
Thus, it is not preserved for review (see, Matter of Ouimet v Ouimet, 186 AD2d 1002; MacMaster v Sardina, 182 AD2d 1132, 1133). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.