Lawsuit Filed by Frank and Pam Eighmey Against Town of Woodstock

FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 12:01 PM INDEX NO.
EF2023-1411
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ULSTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of
FRANK EIGHMEY, and PAM EIGHMEY, Index No: _____________
Petitioner-Plaintiffs
VERIFIED PETITION AND
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice COMPLAINT
Law and Rules, and Declaratory Judgment,
-against-
THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; THE TOWN BOARD OF

THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; FRANCIS HOFFMAN, in
His Capacity as the Building Inspector for the Town of
Woodstock; THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE
CONIGLIARO; and VINCENT CONIGLIARO AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE
CONIGLIARO
Respondent-Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The Petitioner-Plaintiff, FRANK EIGHMEY and PAM EIGHMEY (together,
“Petitioners”), by and through their attorneys, CATANIA, MAHON & RIDER, PLLC, as and for
their Verified Complaint and Petition against Respondent-Defendant, THE TOWN OF
WOODSTOCK; THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; FRANCIS
HOFFMAN, in his capacity as the building inspector of for the Town of Woodstock; THE
ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE CONIGLIARO; and VINCENT CONIGLIARO AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE CONIGLIARO (collectively,
“Respondents”), alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1 of 46
FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 12:01 PM INDEX NO. EF2023-1411
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a hybrid special proceeding commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and CPLR § 3001 to address Respondents’ repeated
and continuing failure to address the environmental conditions present at the property located at
SBL 26.2-7-41 on the tax maps of the Town of Woodstock, commonly referred to as 10 Church
Road, Shady, New York 12409 (“Site”).
2. Petitioners are the owner of real property located in the Town of Woodstock, which
has been and will continue to be impacted by the issuance of Building Permit 23-174, dated April
13, 2023, issued to Vincent Conigliaro as Executor for Salvatore & Louise (“Permit”). See
Compl. Exhibit A.
3. The issuance of the Permit was in direct contravention of the Town of Woodstock’s
Fill and Grading Law, Solid Waste Law, and Zoning Ordinance.
4. Petitioners ask the Court to (1) find that the Town’s issuance of the Permit was
arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; (2) order the Town to immediately rescind the Permit;
and (3) order the Town to immediately remediate the fill material and associated environmental
contamination present at the Site by removing all unlawfully placed material therefrom and
disposing of same at an appropriate off-site facility and to implement a groundwater monitoring
program to protect the potable water well located on Petitioners’ property.
PARTIES
5. Respondent Town of Woodstock is a municipality of the State of New York.
6. Respondent Town Board of the Town of Woodstock is the governing body of the
Town of Woodstock.
Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

641 Broadway, Newburgh, NY 12550 | (845) 565-1100
2 of 46
7. Respondent Francis Hoffman (“Hoffman,” and, together with the Town of
Woodstock and the Town Board, the “Town”) is the building inspector for the Town of
Woodstock.
8. Respondent Estate of Salvatore and Louise Conigliaro (“Estate”) is the owner of
the Site.
9. Respondent Vincent Conigliaro (“Conigliaro”) is the executor of the Estate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Respondents pursuant to CPLR § 301.
11. Venue in this Action is laid in the County of Ulster pursuant to CPLR § 506(b), as
the Town issued the Permit in Ulster County, and all material events took place in Ulster County.
12. This Action was brought within four months of the issuance of the Permit and,
therefore, is timely pursuant to CPLR § 217(1).
STANDING
13. Petitioners have standing to bring this Action, as Petitioner is directly impacted by
the actions authorized by the Permit.
14. Petitioners are the owner of the property located at SBL 26.2-7-8 on the tax maps
of the Town of Woodstock, commonly referred to as 59 Reynolds Lane, Shady, N.Y., 12409
(“Eighmey Property”).
15. The Eighmey Property is situated along the eastern boundary of the Site.
16. The Eighmey Property is hydrologically downgradient of the Site.
17. As set forth in greater detail below, Conigliaro’s placement of construction and
demolition debris, such as brick, block, asphalt, rock, wood, glass, coal, ash, slag and concrete,

3 of 46
along with associated fines, residues, and sediments (collectively, “C&D Material”) on the Site
has significantly impacted Petitioners’ exclusive use and enjoyment of the Eighmey Property. The
C&D Material’s placement has caused significant sediment accumulation in the potable water well
situated on the Eighmey Property (“Eighmey Well”), which, combined with bacterial
contamination, has rendered the Eighmey Well unusable. In addition, sampling performed on
behalf of Conigliaro demonstrates that the C&D Material contains several substances at
concentrations in excess of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) soil
cleanup guidelines.
18. Performance of the work as described in the Permit issued by the Town will (1)
cause further harm to Petitioners by allowing the C&D Material to remain onsite and continue
impacting the Eighmey Well; and (2) present a significant risk to human health and safety in light
of the contamination present in that material, which contamination will eventually migrate
downgradient onto the Eighmey Property and into the Eighmey Well.
BACKGROUND
19. In or about December 2019, Conigliaro and his spouse, Gina Conigliaro, contracted
with Joesph Karolys and J. Karolys + Son (together, “Karolys”) for, among other things, the
placement of fill on the Site, ostensibly for the purpose of grade adjustment.
20. At or about the same time, Karolys began delivering C&D Material to the Property.
21. From approximately December 2019 through approximately July 2020, roughly
200 loads – or at least 2,800yd3 – of C&D Material were dumped on the Property.
22. The C&D Material was placed in two separate areas on the east and west sides of
the Site (see Conrad Affidavit.)

4 of 46
23. Upon information and belief, dumping on the Property took place at various
intervals and during both the daylight and nighttime hours.
24. The material originated from at least one of the Karolys-operated solid waste
facilities, located in Saugerties, N.Y.
25. Upon information and belief, Karolys operated a DEC-registered C&D processing
plant at Route 212 Saugerties, N.Y.
26. Upon information and belief, over a 3-year period ending in December 2019
Karolys accepted at least 3,000 loads of C&D debris, a volume exceeding 100,000 cubic yards,
which originated primarily in the New York City metro area.
27. Karolys used screening equipment to separate various components of the C&D
debris, such as large rocks and concrete pieces. This process generated large quantities of smaller
sized particles of C&D waste, which Karolys referred to as “screen fill product” and which he
described as “90% dirt with chunks of concrete, bricks and rock in it.”
28. Upon information and belief, Karolys removed C&D Material from the registered
Route 212 Facility to two unregistered and unpermitted solid waste dump sites, the so-called Goat
Hill Site and the so-called Fel Qui Road Site, also each located in Saugerties, N.Y. (collectively,
“Karolys Sites”).
29. In or about July 2019, in a much-publicized matter, DEC shuttered the Karolys
Sites for numerous and repeated violations of the facility’s solid waste registration requirements.
30. Upon information and belief, in July 2019 DEC ordered Karolys to remove and
properly dispose of all waste material from the Karolys Sites, which at the time totaled more than
56,000 cubic yards.

5 of 46
31. Conigliaro and Gina Conigliaro eventually became aware that the material being
dumped on the Site by Karolys contained significant amounts of C&D Material.
32. At all relevant times, the Town has known that the C&D Material originated at the
Karolys Sites. For example, during a radio interview given on or about May 29, 2023, Town
Supervisor Bill McKenna (“McKenna”) stated that he knew as early as January 2020 that it was
Karolys bringing the C&D Material to the Site.
33. For example, in February 2020, a Woodstock resident sent a video of a Karolys
dump truck exiting the Site to Supervisor McKenna and expressed concern about what was being
dumped.
34. Then, in April 2020, Supervisor McKenna acknowledged that Karolys may be
dumping C&D at 10 Church Road, according to a Hudson Valley 1 news report:
The Town of Woodstock is seeking state Department of

Environmental Conservation help in identifying material Joe
Karolys’ Saugerties-based construction-and-demolition disposal
operation has hauled to a parcel on Church Road in Shady.
Supervisor Bill McKenna said Building Inspector Ellen Casciaro
discovered “a dozen loads of fill” deposited on the property. Karolys
is apparently selling the fill to a customer there. When town
officials questioned Karolys about the fill’s source, he would only
say it came from Kingston and has refused to cooperate, raising
doubts the fill is free of contaminants. Given Karolys’ history, the
town became suspicious and contacted the state Department of
Environmental Conservation to request an investigation. … In
May, 2019, the state DEC raided Karolys’ Route 212 property and
uncovered 39 alleged violations of clean water and solid waste
disposal laws, and has issued its own requirement that Karolys desist
from importing the material and that he clean the three properties.
Tests found heavy metals and pesticides including DDT in materials
dumped at the Route 212 site. “If [the fill] is clean and he would
just be transparent about it, everyone would benefit and there
wouldn’t be an issue,” said McKenna. The supervisor is trying to
raise awareness that Karolys may be seeking alternate locations
since he was shut down in December.

6 of 46
[See https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2020/01/17/woodstock-
suspicious-of-saugerties-contractors-shady-dumping/ (emphasis
added).]
35. Woodstock Town Code Section 192-4 provides in full:
A. No person, firm or private or municipal corporation or

department thereof shall place, deposit or dump or cause to be
placed, deposited or dumped for the purpose of abandonment
any metal, plaster, lumber, construction and demolition debris,
metal tanks, automobile parts (except in legal and presently
existing auto salvage yards), barrels, cans, appliances, tires,
furniture, medical waste, or noncompostable solid waste of any
nature on any public or privately owned lot, tract of land, street,
alley, road, park or reserve within the boundaries of the Town.
B. No material of any nature which could be or is considered to be

hazardous, infectious, toxic, radioactive, harmful or a pollutant
may be dumped anywhere within the boundaries of the Town.
C. The use of any lands, including privately owned lands, with in

the Town for dumping of noncompostable solid waste is hereby
prohibited.
36. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4A to place C&D debris or
noncompostable solid waste of any kind on any property within the territorial boundaries of the
Town.
37. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4B to place contaminated material
or any material that could be considered a pollutant on any property within the territorial
boundaries of the Town.
38. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4C to use any property within the
territorial boundaries of the Town for purposes of disposing of noncompostable solid waste.

7 of 46
39. The Town Code’s definition of “noncompostable solid waste”, at Town Code §
192-2, includes C&D Material without reservation.
40. It is, therefore, a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4C to use any property
within the territorial boundaries of the Town for purposes of disposing of C&D Material.
41. Additionally, Woodstock Town Code § 192-8 provides in pertinent part: “[i]n each
instance of a violation of § 192-4 of this chapter, in addition to the fine imposed shall be the costs
incurred by the Town for removal of illegal materials and the proper disposal of such; for
restoration of the premises to its prior condition to the extent practicable; and for any reasonable
attorney fees paid by the Town to enforce compliance with § 192-4 of this chapter.”
42. Upon information and belief, Conigliaro saw pieces of C&D as large as one-to-two
feet in diameter in the material being dumped on the Site.
43. Upon information and belief, Conigliaro visited the Karolys Route 212 Site and
observed the C&D screening operation and the processed C&D Material that was to be delivered
to the Site.
44. Some of the C&D Material was placed along the Site’s eastern boundary, abutting
the Site’s shared boundary with the Eighmey Property.
45. On information and belief, the C&D Material was placed in a pile at least ten feet
in height.
46. On information and belief, the C&D Material pile created a 55% slope, the eastern
toe of which extended nearly to the boundary of the Eighmey Property.
47. The C&D Material was placed a mere twenty-three feet from the Eighmey Well.

8 of 46
48. Notably, the Eighmey Well is the sole source of potable water on the Eighmey
Property.
49. On May 21, 2020, Respondent issued three Orders to Remedy Violations to
Conigliaro:. Order No. 20-09 for the “dumping of unstabilized fill into neighboring properties”
and for the “failure to observe proper methods for grading and drainage of exterior property” [and]
to “cease all dumping [and] provide stabilization plans.” Order No. 20-10 for “illegal dumping:
dumping of hazardous waste” [and] directed Conigliaro to “submit bill of laden (sic) with proof of
clean fill.” Order No. 20-11 was a “Stop Work Order” and directed Conigliaro to “cease all work
[and] remedy the violating conditions on or before June 9, 2020. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. C.
50. That same day, DEC obtained a sample of the material, which had eroded onto the
Eighmey Property from the unstable C&D Material pile, for compositional analysis to visually
identify the type and amount of its main components. That DEC analysis revealed that the material
is composed of rock, asphalt, concrete, glass, coal ash, brick, and wood. Moreover, the particle
size distribution by weight is as follows: 52.9% greater than 6mm, 10% 2-6mm, and 39.8% less
than 2mm. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. B.
51. Upon information and belief, in June 2020, the Town’s then Building Inspector,
Ellen Casciaro, notified Conigliaro that the Stop Work Order would be lifted upon Conigliaro’s
presentment of the following information to Respondent: (1) billing statement setting forth the
number of truckloads dumped at the Site; (2) a written scope of work; (3) the point of origin for all
fill dumped at the Site; (4) a site drawing with detail relating to planned hydroseeding; and (5) an
overall explanation of site stabilization. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. D.

9 of 46
52. Upon information and belief, the Estate provided only partial responses to
Casciaro’s information request.
53. Nevertheless, the Stop Work Order was lifted on June 23, 2020.
54. Upon information and belief, Conigliaro did not at any time demand that Karolys
cease delivering C&D Material to the Site, and Conigliaro allowed Karolys to continue deliveries
during the period of the Stop Work Order and until July 2020.
55. On information and belief, on or about February 12, 2021, the Town charged
Conigliaro, Gina Conligliaro, and Karolys with 200 counts each of violating Town Code § 192-4A
(dumping of non-compostable solid waste) and § 192-4C (use of land within the Town for
dumping of non-compostable solid waste).
56. On information and belief, on or about January 27, 2022, Gina Conigliaro, and
Karolys each pled guilty to violating Woodstock Town Code 192-4C, relating to the placement of
non-compostable solid waste on the Site. The charges against Conigliaro were dismissed.
57. According to McKenna, the criminal convictions that resulted from those charges
gave the Town the ability to force removal and proper disposal of illegal materials at the Site by
the Owner and, in the event of noncompliance by Conigliaro, the Town would have the right to
step in and perform the removal and disposal itself.
FACTS RELATING TO THE TOWN’S KNOWLEDGE THAT FILL REMOVAL AT THE

SITE IS NEEDED
58. The C&D Material at the Karolys Sites contained concentrations above DEC soil
cleanup guidelines of, among other things, the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene, benzo(B)fluoranthene, benzo(K)fluoranthene, chrysene,
and ideno(1,2,3-C,D)pyrene; the metal lead; and the pesticide DDT. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. B.

10 of 46
59. Upon information and belief, the Town has, at all relevant times, been aware of the
fact that the C&D Material at the Karolys Sites was contaminated.
60. In or about May 2020, a severe rain event caused stormwater surface runoff to
cascade down the C&D Material stockpile and onto the Eighmey Property. This rain event also
caused the unstable C&D Material pile to wash out onto the Eighmey Property.
61. Upon information and belief, there were extensive discussions about the Site and
the C&D Material among and between Woodstock residents, which were shared with the Town
beginning in January 2020.
62. Upon information and belief, the Town also recognized the need, as early as
August 2020, for a cleanup at the Site and monitoring of the Eighmey Well to prevent
contamination thereof.
63. Upon information and belief, as early as 2020, the Town had begun planning to, if
necessary, enter upon the Site, perform a removal of the C&D Material, and recover its costs for
same from the Estate.
64. According to the publicly maintained minutes of a Town Board meeting held
October 2, 2020, Board Members expressed concern about “the possible runoff of illegal fill to the
Eighmey’s well, or the nearby streams.”
65. At the October 20, 2020 Town Board Meeting, the Woodstock Environmental
Commission (“WEC”) presented a resolution calling for regular monitoring of the Eighmey Well
and sampling of the C&D Material in response to concerns for negative environmental impacts
stemming from the placement of the C&D Material on the Site. At that meeting, McKenna stated

11 of 46
“[o]ur Town attorney will then force a cleanup of the area. Councilman Heppner asked if all the
soil an[d] debris would be removed, and Supervisor McKenna said yes.” See Compl. Exhibit B.
66. As far back as 2020, the Town knew that full removal of the C&D Material from
the Site is necessary and that negative environmental impacts would be likely in the event that the
C&D Material were not removed from the Site.
67. For example, at a Town Board meeting on October 20, 2020, there was an
exchange between Supervisor McKenna and Town Board members:
Councilperson: It takes time for this to get

into the well, you’re going to just sit and let it
happen?
McKenna: We’re hopeful we’ll get it cleaned
up before that happens.
....
Councilperson: When you say cleanup do
mean remove all fill?
McKenna: Yes. Well, that’s going to be our
position. And that’s the owner’s position as
well. He would like it removed.
[See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh-
ChcmfMtU.]
68. McKenna has publicly acknowledged in a recent radio interview that full removal
of the C&D Material from the Site is the best remedy and that such full removal is “definitely a
doable thing.”
69. For example, the October 20, 2020 Town Board meeting, Congiliaro’s
environmental consultant, Jim McIver, told the Town as follows:
The sensitive receptor here is the aquifer that underlies Vincent’s

property, so anything that was in that fill material is going to end up
in the aquifer, and his neighbors’ well is the likely immediate threat
in this situation. . . . The best thing to happen here is for that
material to be removed from Vincent’s property and that is likely to

12 of 46
take care of the whole problem. . . . [S]o the immediate risk is the
drinking water well of the adjacent neighbor because they create a
cone of depression every time they use their wells so they’re pulling
the water towards their well so we want to make sure that well is not
impacted. . . . [T]hat material should not have ever been place there.
. . . If the groundwater was impacted beneath where the fill was
placed then all of the wells within the vicinity of the site are
potentially threatened. . . . The transport mechanism is rainwater
infiltrating the fill and into groundwater and being used in your well.
. . . Any rainwater that goes through that fill material migrates into
groundwater eventually and becomes your drinking water supply.
[See Video, Woodstock Town Board Meeting, October 20, 2020,

available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O02IGFl8iLo&list=PLIZp_zG4
-TyzMji8-pZj1axDHEFTjlMZk&index=17.]
70. Then, at a Town Board meeting on October 27, 2020, Supervisor Bill McKenna
(“McKenna”) noted that the Town Board was united in its desire to remove the C&D Material and
that the Town would assemble a sampling plan for the Eighmey Well. See Compl. Exhibit C.
71. At that same meeting, Conigliaro noted that he had received contractor bids for
removal, and Councilman Rose of the Town of Woodstock expressed urgency for the full removal
of the C&D Material by the end of the year.
72. On information and belief, as a result of the placement of C&D Material on the
Site, Councilman Heppner of the Town of Woodstock expressed at that meeting the need for a
better “fill law.”
73. On or about July 13, 2021, the Town enacted its so-called better fill law, by
creating Chapter 280 of the Town Code, the “Fill and Grading Law of the Town of Woodstock.”
74. Chapter 280 prohibits the “uncontrolled filling or excavating” of local properties
without a permit issued thereunder.
75. Chapter 280 prohibits the placement of C&D on any property in the Town.

13 of 46
76. Chapter 280 also specifically requires a permit for the excavation or grading of
existing material on a property and movement of that material to a different place on the same
property.
77. The permit requirements set forth in Chapter 280 are detailed and specific:
The following information is required to be provided to the Building

Department in order to obtain a permit:
(1) Engineering drawings showing the section, block and lot

numbers upon which the activity will be conducted.
(2) A plan showing all existing and proposed contour lines of not
more than intervals of two feet, the area that is to be disturbed by the
proposed excavation or landfilling, the amount of fill to be
delivered, location of trees over four inches in diameter measured
four feet from the ground, road access to the site, the area proposed
to be disturbed and its relation to neighboring properties, the
location of any well, and the depth thereof, the location of any
sewage disposal system, the location of natural wetlands and
watercourses, if any, located within 50 feet of the proposed
disturbed area, together with buildings and roads.
(3) The estimated maximum quantity of material to be excavated

and/or removed and/or the estimated maximum quantity that will be
used for regrading or filling, computed from cross sections of a
proposed excavation or disturbed area and a description of any
material to be used, and the source of the fill material. The source(s)
and type(s) of fill must be suitable for its intended purpose, as
determined by the Building Inspector or the Town's Engineer.
(4) An erosion control plan.
(5) The details of any drainage system proposed to be installed and

maintained by the applicant, designed to provide for proper surface
drainage of the land, both during the performance of the work
applied for, and after the completion thereof. Drainage may not be
re-directed toward neighboring properties.
(6) If a proposed excavation is for the purpose of making a lake or

pond, the details of the proposed construction of the dam or other
structure or embankment intended to impound the water, together

14 of 46
with the details and location of proposed discharge and of a valved

outlet for drainage purposes.
(7) Documentation regarding permit status with the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation prior to the issuance of
a permit. Any New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation permit required must be in effect prior to the issuing of
a permit.
(8) Proof of insurance adequate to cover the intended work pursuant

to the terms of the permit.
(9) The rehabilitation proposed, and the estimate of the cost of such
work in accordance with the standards in this section.
[Town Code § 280-6B.]
78. Chapter 280 also gives the Town the authority to remove and restore noncompliant
properties:
In the event that the owner, occupant or person in control of such

site shall fail to comply with this article, the Town shall have the
authority, as provided for herein, to enter onto such land and remove
such noncomplying fill and restore the land to an appropriate and
safe state and charge the cost and expense of such action against the
owner and establish a lien against the land in the manner herein
provided.
[Town Code § 280-8F.]
79. Upon information and belief, officials in the Town of Woodstock, including
McKenna, former Building Inspector Ellen Casciario, and Town Engineer, Dennis Larios
(“Larios”), planned for the Town to remove the C&D Material from the Site to an appropriate
offsite dump and then adding the cost of that cleanup to the Site’s tax bill, all in recognition of the
fact that the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site presents significant
environmental risk and risk to human health and safety.

15 of 46
80. For example, in an email to Lario dated February 1, 2022, McKenna stated, “I
would like you to move forward as quickly as possible in developing a plan and obtaining bids to
clean up the illegal fill on the property owned by the Conigliaro property at 10 Church Road in
Shady.” See Compl. Exhibit D.
81. That same day, McKenna emailed Petitioners stating, “[t]he Town Engineer,
Dennis Larios, is working on plans to remove the fill from 10 Church Road. Would you be
agreeable to allowing trucks over your property to do this removal? Of course we would stipulate
your property would be put back to original condition.” See Compl. Exhibit E.
82. The next day, McKenna notified Petitioners of a “change of plans,” stating that the
Town would not need “to access your property for the removal other than cleaning up the material
that has run onto your place. I will keep you posted.” See Compl. Exhibit F.
83. On or about March 3, 2022, the WEC wrote to McKenna recommending swift
action by the Town to remove the C&D Material from the Site, including preparation of the
Remedial Action Work Plan (“RAWP”). See Compl. Exhibit G.
84. The Town even proceeded to investigate potential destinations for the C&D
Material, which it had intended to remove from the Site.
85. For example, on March 22, 2022, McKenna emailed Larios to say:
I had a very good chat with Dave Pollock at the DEC with regard to
locations to deposit the fill from Church Road. He suggested the
UCRRA might accept the fill, he also suggested the Colonie landfill.
They might accept it as alternate daily cover. Instead of me relaying
the entire message it would probably be best if you spoke with him
directly. His number is 845-256-3138.
[See Compl. Exhibit H.]

16 of 46
86. At a Town Board meeting on April 22, 2022, Supervisor McKenna stated that he
had expected to receive a written plan for removal of the material from the Town Engineer that
day, and that he had intended to propose a resolution for the cleanup at that meeting, but there had
been a delay. He said, “[t]he Town Engineer left a message that he wanted to hold off. He had a
plan that we were going to seek bids for today. He asked me to hold off, that he was going to
make some adjustments to the plan. That’s all I know. When I talk to him tomorrow I’ll have a
better idea. . . . As soon as we have it you’ll have it. It will be public.” See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKO1susgjro.
87. In an email dated May 10, 2022, Larios recommended contracting for the removal
work with a single, specialized contractor. Larios also suggested seeking the advice of the
Association of Towns to determine whether the work needed to proceed pursuant to “normal
municipal bid requirements.” See Compl. Exhibit I.
88. Importantly, in that email, Larios described the scope of work as including the need
to “1. Screen out the C&D material pile by pile[;] 2. Load and transport the C&D material to
licensed site[;] 3. Test the remaining soil[; and] 4. Soften the slope along Eighmey property.”
89. Moreover, the Town took the notable step of sending an undated letter to
Conigliaro, informing him that if he did not remove all of the C&D Material from the Site, the
Town would do so and recover the cost of same through the tax assessed on the Site:
Please be aware the Town is waiting for your remediation plan

regarding the removal of all construction debris and the stabilization
of the grade facing the Eighmey residence on Reynolds Lane.
Should work not commence by September 1st, 2022, the Town will
engage the services of a contractor to remove all the fill and dispose
of it. The costs will then be levied to your property tax bill. Know
that the Town Engineer estimates this cost at over $500,000.

17 of 46
The Town Board will be establishing a capitol project at our meeting

tomorrow evening.
[See Compl. Exhibit J.]
90. Additionally, McKenna stated in a recent radio interview that he had recommended
a $200,000 capital project to clean up the Site. He further stated that the Town could lawfully
spend that money to clean up the Site if it thereafter sought compensation from Conigliaro by
means of a tax sale of the Site.
91. The Town’s determination to reverse course and allow the C&D Material to remain
on the Site appears to have been based on concerns over costs and not based on the Permit record.
92. Notably, Town Code § 192-8 provides the Town the authority to clean up the Site
and recoup its costs from the Estate and/or Conigliaro as the responsible parties.
93. Upon information and belief, the Town never submitted a request for bids for the
removal of the C&D Material from the Site.
94. Upon information and belief, the Town never executed an agreement with a
contractor for the removal of the C&D Material from the Site.
95. To date, the Town has not removed the C&D Material from the Site.
96. To date, the Town has provided no coherent explanation to Petitioners as to why it
has reversed course and allowed the C&D Material to remain on the Site.
97. Upon information and belief, the Town has at all relevant times been aware that the
C&D Material needs to be removed from the Site in order to mitigate the related environmental
risks associated therewith.

18 of 46
CONTAMINATION
98. On or about December 7, 2022, four soil samples were collected from the eastern
part of the fill area on Conigliaro’s behalf by Quality Environmental Solutions & Technologies,
Inc. See Conrad Affidavit ¶¶ 38-50.
99. To date, no narrative description or rationale for test pit siting or sample collection
procedures has been provided, nor has a qualified professional provided a written explanation as to
how these four samples could be considered representative of the entire accumulation of C&D
Material on the Site.
100. Nevertheless, the samples revealed the presence in the C&D Material of several
substances at concentrations in excess of DEC’s applicable soil cleanup guidelines.
101. Specifically, soil sampling revealed exceedances of the semi-volatile organic
compounds (“SVOCs”) benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene, benzo(B)fluoranthene,
benzo(K)fluoranthene, chrysene, and ideno(1,2,3-C,D)pyrene – the same SVOCs found in the
sampling data at Karolys’s Saugerties Facility.
102. Additionally, sampling at the Site revealed exceedances of lead .
103. Finally – and perhaps most alarmingly – sampling at the Site revealed the presences
of a pair of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”): perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
(“PFOS”) and perfluorobutanoic acid (“PFBA”).
104. PFAS compounds – which are frequently referred to as “forever chemicals” due to
the fact that they do not naturally break down in the environment or the human body – are
notoriously transportable along exposure pathways, such as through groundwater. In other words,
PFAS compounds easily migrate through soil and groundwater.

19 of 46
105. As set forth above, the Eighmey Property is adjacent to the Site and immediately
hydrologically downgradient therefrom.
106. As set forth above, the Eighmey Well – the Eighmey Property’s sole source of
potable water – is only 23 feet downgradient of the dumping area.
107. Disposal of C&D Material on the Site has already impacted the Eighmey Well. For
example, an April 2022 sample of the drinking water from the Eighmey Well reveals the presence
of Total Coliform, a type of bacteria that renders water unsafe to drink.
108. Upon information and belief, coliform bacteria had never been present in the
Eighmey Well previously.
109. Bacterial contamination of groundwater and wells in close proximity to buried
debris occurs when leachate is produced and enters groundwater. For example, leachate can alter
the pH (acidity) of the water, which in turn can dissolve and mobilize metals and minerals present
in the soil. Resulting changes in groundwater chemistry promote the growth of bacteria by, for
example, enhancing the production or release of nutrients or substrate surfaces that are beneficial
to bacteria.
110. The presence of the C&D Material has also caused visible changes to the quality of
the water. Dark residues now accumulate on sinks and other fixtures that contact the well water.
Additionally, sediment buildup has caused significant reductions in water pressure to Petitioners’
home and requires frequent change of the whole-house sediment filter. These residues often
coincide with accelerated bacterial growth.
111. The Town has at all relevant times been aware of the sampling results revealing
that the C&D Material unlawfully placed on the Site is contaminated.

20 of 46
112. The Town has further been aware at all relevant times that (i) the Site overlies the
local drinking water aquifer; (ii) the Site is hydrologically upgradient of several other potable
water wells other than the Eighmey Well; and (iii) that the Site is hydrologically upgradient of the
Sawkill Creek and a tributary to the Sawkill.
113. The Town posts on its website a series of Woodstock Natural Resources Inventory
Maps, one of which, Map 9, shows the boundaries of the drinking water aquifer in relation to
individual tax parcels. This map clearly indicates that the Site is situated atop the sand and gravel
aquifer that supplies individual drinking water wells and the Town’s municipal drinking water
wells. See Compl. Exhibit K.
THE PERMIT
114. On or about November 7, 2022, the Estate applied for a building permit from the
Town (“Application”). See Compl. Exhibit A.
115. The Application set forth the nature of work as “dirt removal and redistribution.”
116. The Application included the one-page attachment titled “Plan E 10 Church Road
Soil Clean up”, dated October 5, 2022 (“Plan E”).
117. The Application was facially deficient, as set forth below.
118. The Application contained a material misstatement, as the material needing
removal is not dirt, it is C&D debris, including associated fines, sediments, and residues.
119. In violation of Town Code § 280-6B(1), Plan E is not an “engineering drawing,” as
it was not prepared by a licensed engineer or by any other similarly qualified individual.
120. Plan E was not drawn to scale, rendering it meaningless with regard to the
placement and extent of stockpiled material it purported to show.

21 of 46
121. Plan E did not properly show relevant property lines.
122. Plan E did not set forth any narrative description of fill stabilization, nor did it
provide any cross-sections or calculations.
123. Plan E was prepared by “Salvin,” which, upon information and belief, is the name
of Conigliaro’s event planning business.
124. Plan E describes the work to be performed on Site in total as follows:
Scope of Work:
Move dirt in question to location on property (shown above
“Stockpile”) where dirt is to be tested by certified testing company
(Quest Labs). Install and maintain storm water prevention. Removal
of material, slope to 1:3. Stabilize hill slope. Stockpiled material will
be separated into usable fill and construction waste material to be
removed from site as encountered. Clean fill to be graded into
natural contours of property.
Site Retention:
All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched as soon as practical
following the disturbance to stabilize bare soil and promote re-
establishment of vegetation. An adequate seedbed shall be prepared
by scarifying compacted soil and removing any surface debris and
obstacles. All seeding is to be done by Hydroseeding. Hydroseeder
to distribute sluree [sic] of 5-10-10 fertilizer, 20 pounds of feccue
[sic] 30 pounds rye grass per acre.
[Compl. Exhibit A.]
125. Plan E also states that “dirt” samples will be collected but provides no detail as to
the means and methods of collection, testing procedures, QA/QC protocols, or sampling frequency
or density.
126. In short, Plan E lacks any of the hallmarks of an “engineering drawing” sufficient
for issuance of a Chapter 280 permit.

22 of 46
127. In violation of Town Code § 280-6B(2), Plan E and the Application fail to show
existing and proposed contour lines at intervals of at least two feet, or the location and depth of the
Eighmey Well or the Conigliaro well in relation to the area to be disturbed, the location of any
onsite sewage disposal system, or the location of nearby watercourses – such as the Sawkill Creek
or its tributaries.
128. In violation of Town Code § 280-6B(3), Plan E and the Application fail to set forth
the quantity of material to be moved as computed by reference to a cross section of the disturbance
area.
129. In further violation of Town Code § 280-6B(3), the C&D Material is not suitable
for its intended purpose, as demonstrated by the washout of material that occurred in 2020 and by
the aforementioned statements of Conigliaro’s prior consultant and the December 2022 sampling
data demonstrating that the material is contaminated.
130. Plan E stated that material would be separated into “usable fill” and “construction
waste material,” without providing any detail as to what those terms mean in the context of Plan E,
how such separation would be achieved, what containment measures would be implemented for
stockpiling of contaminated material, or what equipment would be employed to achieve this
separation.
an erosion control plan. Rather, Plan E makes passing reference to “storm water prevention,”
without setting forth any detail whatsoever as to what that will entail.

23 of 46
the extent to which the proposed disturbance would require Conigliaro to obtain a State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) Permit and the status of any such application.
133. Generally, a SPDES Permit is required for projects that will disturb more than one
acre of land. For projects that proceed in multiple phases of disturbance, the disturbance for each
phase is aggregated to determine whether a SPDES Permit must be acquired.
134. Here, a SPDES Permit may have been needed. See Conrad Affidavit.
135. In the event that the work covered by the Permit was merely a second phase of the
larger project for which Congiliaro initially caused the C&D Material to be placed on the Site,
then a SPDES Permit was required. Conigliaro’s failure to address that requirement in any way in
the Application renders the Application facially deficient.
136. In the event that the work covered by the Permit is a standalone project, a SPDES
Permit still may have been necessary. However, as Plan E and the Application are so devoid of
detail as to make it impossible to assess whether a SPDES Permit was necessary.
a cost estimate for the proposed work prepared “in accordance with the standards” of Chapter 280,
which standards include preparation of plans by an engineer and preparation of a soil erosion
control plan. Rather, the Application sets forth a generalized cost estimate of “$250,000 to
$300,000,” without providing any detail as to the bases of such alleged estimated costs.
138. Taken together, these violations of Chapter 280’s application requirements
rendered the Application facially deficient.

24 of 46
139. Because the Application failed to meet the application requirements of Chapter
280, the Town should have denied the Permit.
140. Prior to submission of the Application, a copy of Plan E was provided to Petitioners
on or about October 11, 2022.
141. That same day, Petitioners’ environmental consultant, John Conrad (“Conrad”),
wrote to the Town outlining the above-described defects in Plan E. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. K.
142. On October 17, 2022, Conrad again wrote to the Town about Plan E, this time
providing significant detail about the environmental risks and risks to human health and safety
associated with implantation of Plan E and permitting the C&D Material to remain onsite. See
Conrad Affidavit Exh. L.
143. Then, on January 6, 2023 and February 17, 2023, Conrad again wrote to the Town.
Those letters each highlighted (1) that the sampling performed was insufficient to fully delineated
and characterize the extent of contamination at the Site as a result of the disposal of C&D
Material; and (2) the serious nature of the contamination in the C&D Material. See Conrad
Affidavit Exh. M.
144. On March 17, 2023, the WEC (“WEC Letter”) wrote to the Town, noting that “this
has been a preventable environmental disaster. In allowing the approximate 2,800 cubic yards of
contaminated fill to continue to site at 10 Church Road now going into its fourth year, the Town
government continues not to live up to its responsibility to ensure the health and safety of
Woodstock residents.” See Compl. Exhibit L.

25 of 46
145. Importantly, the WEC Letter stated in no uncertain terms that the fines, sediments,
and residues that had been dumped on the Site represent the single greatest risk driver at the Site,
as those carried the greatest risk of reaching the aquifer under the Site.
146. The WEC Letter further points out that the Town has failed to meet its obligations
as set forth in its own resolution requiring it to undertake regular sampling of the Eighmey Well.
147. The WEC Letter set forth WEC’s recommendations to the Town:
a. Complete a survey of the Site showing the exact placement of all C&D
Material;
b. Immediately implement a groundwater monitoring program and regular
sampling of the Eighmey Well;
c. Immediate remediation of the Site in accord with applicable DEC regulations
and guidance documents;
d. That Respondent exercise its authority under Town Code § 280-8F to remediate
the Site and recoup the costs for same from Conigliaro.
148. To date, the Town has not implemented any of the WEC Letter’s
recommendations.
149. Instead, the Town approved the facially deficient Application and issued the
Permit.
150. The Permitted actions are stated as “Remediation of Fill Violation Per Engineers
Specifications and Town Board Approval,” which is a material misrepresentation.

26 of 46
151. First, as outlined above, the so-called remedial actions in Plan E, if implemented,
would not achieve compliance with applicable Town Law Chapter 192, since, among other things,
the illegal waste would remain on the Site permanently.
152. Second, plans and specifications for the permitted excavation, sorting, testing, on-
site relocation, and off-site disposal of the illegal waste, as set forth in Plan E, were not prepared
by a licensed engineer, and, as outlined above, comply with virtually none of the requirements of
the Town’s Fill and Grading Law.
153. Third, authorization for Conigliaro to retain the illegal fill on site permanently, as
per Plan E, was not a result of “Town Board approval.” The Town Board did not vote on such a
resolution, and “approval” of the work represented in Plan E appears, therefore, to be nothing
more than a private understanding between Conigliaro and Supervisor McKenna.
154. Then, on or about June 8, 2023, the Woodstock Human Rights Commission
(“WHRC”) submitted a memorandum to the Woodstock Town Board, noting that the Town’s
allowance for the unlawful C&D Material to remain on the Site places residents’ drinking water at
risk. See Compl. Exhibit M.
155. The WHRC Memorandum provided, in part:
We are aware that after the property owners failed to clean up this
property, the town pursued and won a legal ruling approving the
town’s right to conduct the cleanup despite the material being
located on private property. Since then, the property owner has
facilitated the removal solely of the larger pieces of debris. It is our
understanding the property owner will not be doing any additional
removal of the contaminated materials. While some remediation
action has been taken, we do not believe that it is enough to
maintain the safety of the water supply, soil or air. We remain
particularly concerned about pulverized contaminants that were
dumped at the property came from the Karolys landfill, which was
found in violation of State laws regarding the handling,

27 of 46
accumulation and transport of hazardous and contaminated

construction materials. As per our local law, section 192(4), all of
the materials at 10 Church Road must be removed without sifting
the soil. Their plan for remediating does not contain any of the
necessary safeguards for handling this kind of contaminated material
and can release pollutants into the air, further spread the
contaminated particulates and ultimately affect our town’s water
supply.
Perhaps our greatest concern stems from the location of the aquifer
which leads to the town water supply. The aquifer runs directly
under the contaminated property. As a consequence, when these
remaining contaminated particulates leech into the aquifer they will
eventually infect the town’s water supply. Once the water supply to
Woodstock becomes contaminated, it may not be possible to clean it
up or the cost may be beyond the town’s ability to afford to do so.
Further, the permanent damage that will be done to our environment
cannot be played with in the hopes that this will not happen or will
not happen for a decade or more. We cannot permit this eventual
contamination just because it will not happen today or tomorrow.
....
To that end we request the Town Board either puts forth an adequate
plan to remove ALL contaminants from the 10 Church Rd. property
or put the adequacy of the clean up on the agenda. Woodstockers
must have a voice in the health and safety of the air they breathe and
the water they drink. Moreover we request that the format for
discussion of this issue be that of a town hall meeting rather than the
usual limited public comment part of the bi-monthly town board
meeting which limits a mere handful of people to a two minute
comment. Instead, we ask the town board to hold a town hall
meeting on this issue where all concerned people can have 4 minutes
per person to speak and explore these issues with the board
members. We also ask that the date, time and location of the town
hall meeting be clearly communicated to the members of our
community. The health of our people and our environment is not
partisan but rather a fundamental human right which we all have an
obligation to preserve.

28 of 46
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
156. Upon information and belief, Conigliaro commenced earthworks at the Site in early
May 2023.
157. According to McKenna’s radio interview, pieces of recognizable construction and
demolition debris were hand-sorted out of the C&D Material onsite and disposed offsite at an
unknown facility.
158. Most of the C&D Material, including the associated fines, sediments, and residues,
which carry the greatest risk of migrating contamination, remain onsite. Rather than having been
removed from the Site, much of – but not all of – the material has been pulled back from the
Eighmey Property line and piled on the Site alongside the driveway.
159. There remains C&D Material within 300 feet of the Eighmey Well.
160. The New York State Department of Health requires a minimum of 300 feet
between any potable water well and the placement of any kind of fill. 10 NYCRR App’x 5-B.
161. In recent public statements Supervisor McKenna has said that earthworks at the
Site are now complete.
162. No physical barrier has been placed under the C&D Material to prevent
contaminant leaching into the aquifer.
163. Upon information and belief, no soil sampling was performed to ensure that no
contaminated material remains onsite.
164. Coniligaro has begun hydroseeding areas of the C&D Material berm.

29 of 46
165. A recent drone flight by Conrad captured aerial images of the Site. Those images
confirm that the C&D Material – to the extent that it has been moved at all – was simply
repositioned on the Site and is now being hydroseeded.
166. Moving the C&D Material around on the Site does nothing to remediate the
contamination or eliminate the exposure pathways that present significant risk to the environment
and to human health and safety.
167. If the C&D Material is permitted to remain onsite, the contamination contained
therein will eventually migrate into the groundwater.
168. The Eighmey Property and Eighmey Well are each hydrologically downgradient of
the Site.
169. The Sawkill Creek and a tributary to the Sawkill are hydrologically downgradient
of the Site.
170. The contaminated leachate emanating from the C&D Material will eventually
migrate onto the Eighmey Property and into the Eighmey Well.
171. The only means of preventing this inevitable environmental harm and property
damage is to immediately remove all of the C&D Material from the Site and dispose of it at an
appropriate offsite facility. Thereafter, a program of groundwater monitoring and well sampling
will be necessary to ensure that no lingering contamination reaches the Eighmey Property or the
Eighmey Well.
172. For nearly four years, the Town has repeatedly failed to address the environmental
conditions at the Site, resulting in contamination of the Eighmey Well and threatening severe harm
to the Eighmey Property as well as to the environment.

30 of 46
173. Issuance of the Permit has harmed and will continue to harm Petitioners.
MCKENNA RADIO INTERVIEW
174. On or about May 29, 2023, Woodstock Town Supervisor Bill McKenna
(“McKenna”) appeared on the “Green Radio Hour with Jon Bowermaster” (“Program”), which is
a radio program appearing on a radio station with the call letters WKNY.
175. A recording of the Program was placed on the WKNY website, and is publicly
accessible at the following link: https://radiokingston.org/en/broadcast/green-radio-hour-w-jon-
bowermaster.
176. On the Program, McKenna gave an interview in which he talked about the facts and
circumstances underlying this dispute.
177. At or about timestamp 3:40, McKenna stated that he was aware as early as January
2020 that the C&D Material was being dumped by Karolys.
178. At or about timestamp 4:23, McKenna stated that the C&D Material looked like
piles of dirt. Indeed, at or about timestamp 9:15, McKenna noted that the Town initially saw no
evidence of construction and demolition debris in the C&D Material, and that it was not until a
washout event that pushed the C&D Material onto the Eighmey Property that it became evident to
him that there was construction and demolition debris in the material.
179. At or about timestamp 7:00, McKenna noted that there was not a tremendous
amount of construction and demolition debris in the C&D Material, and that it would have been
easy to conceal by burying.
180. At or about timestamp 7:55, McKenna stated that a total of 200 loads of material
delivered to the Site might be a conservative estimate, and noted at or about timestamp 9:49 that,

31 of 46
in any event, it was not 200 loads of construction and demolition debris that was dumped, but
rather, it was 200 loads of “fill” with construction and demolition debris in it.
181. At or about timestamp 11:00, McKenna stated that Town officials are all in
agreement that material from the Karolys facilities is not clean material.
182. At or about timestamp 11:49, McKenna stated that full removal of the C&D
Material is the best remedy. Furthermore, at or about timestamp 12:09, McKenna admitted that
full removal of the C&D Material from the Site is “definitely a doable thing.”
183. At or about timestamp 17:19, McKenna noted that when it obtained criminal
convictions for violations of Town Code Section 192 arising out of the placement of the C&D
Material on the Site, that gave the Town the authority to force Conigliaro to clean up the Site.
According to McKenna, if Conigliaro failed to clean up the Site, the Town could step in and clean
it up. McKenna further stated that he recommended that the Town establish a $200,000 capital
project to fund the cleanup.
184. At or about timestamp 18:40, McKenna stated that municipal funds cannot be used
to clean up private property. However, he clarified at or about timestamp 18:58 that for the Town
to perform the cleanup here would not have required the use of public funds, as the Town would
have sought to auction the Site at a tax sale after performing the cleanup in order to recoup the
funds used.
185. At or about timestamp 28:25, McKenna stated that all of the construction debris
was removed from the Site.
186. At or about timestamp 35:00, McKenna stated that the concrete and demolition
debris had been taken to an unknown offsite location for disposal.

32 of 46
187. At or about timestamp 29:54, McKenna stated that the C&D Material was hand-
sorted to separate out recognizable concrete and demolition debris from the C&D Material.
188. Notably, Chapter 280 of the Town Code sets forth that on-site sorting is not
permissible under the Filling and Grading Law: “The permit does not permit . . . onsite processing,
sorting or crushing.”
189. At or about timestamp 31:58, McKenna acknowledged that he knew of the
December 2022 fill sampling at the Site and the results.
190. At or about timestamp 31:54, McKenna stated that the contaminants in the C&D
Material that remains on the Site are a concern.
191. At or about timestamp 12:30, McKenna acknowledges the material remaining on
site could be contaminated, saying, “…who knows what the ‘clean fill’ contains? What was
ground up in there? We don’t know.”
192. On May 19, 2023, counsel for Petitioners wrote to Conigliaro with a copy to
McKenna and the Woodstock Building Department setting forth Petitioners’ demand that the Site
be properly cleaned up. See Compl. Exhibit O. Petitioner received no response from any recipient
of the letter.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST
193. On or about April 3, 2023, Petitioners submitted a Freedom of Information Law
request (“Request”) to the Town for various records pertaining to this matter. See Compl. Exh.
N. 1
1
Please note that the date included on the FOIL request states that it was made April 3, 2022. That
was a typographical error. The FOIL request was submitted on or about April 2, 2023.

33 of 46
194. Among other things, the Request sought access to all records pertaining to delivery
and placement of fill in 2019 and 2020; and all documents, communications, plans, drawings,
renderings, notes, diaries, and information pertaining to the evaluation, cleanup, remediation of the
fill material, and site restoration.
195. Under the Freedom of Information Law, the Town was required to acknowledge
receipt of the Request within 5 days of receipt.
196. The Town’s partial response to the Request was incomplete and substantially non-
responsive
197. For example, the Town has improperly withheld records that would be responsive,
such as relevant records in the possession of or generated by the Town Engineer, Town Police
Department, and Town Attorney; and the Town’s FOIL response did not produce receipts,
invoices or other documents related to delivery of the fill material by Karolys that the Town has
acknowledged it possesses.
198. The Town has not claimed any exemptions, exclusions, or privileges applicable to
any records sought in the Request.
199. Accordingly, the Town has wrongfully constructively denied the Request.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Article 78 – Failure to Comply with Town Code Chapter 280)
200. Petitioners repeat and reallege the preceding paragraphs with the same force and
effect as if more fully set forth at length below.
201. The Town’s issuance of the Permit fails to comply with the requirements for same
as set forth in Town Code chapter 280.
202. The Application was facially deficient in at least seven ways.

34 of 46
203. First, the Application did not include an “engineering drawing” setting forth detail
relating to the proposed scope of work.
204. Second, the Application did not include a site map with contour lines at two-foot
intervals, nor any information about the location and depth of nearby wells, nor any indication of
sewer and water lines in and around the disturbance area, nor any information regarding water
courses in relation to the disturbance area.
205. Third, the Application did not contain an estimate of the material to be disturbed by
reference to a cross-section of the disturbance area.
206. Fourth, Application sets forth no evidence that the material – which is unstable and
contaminated – is suitable for its intended purpose.
207. Fifth, the Application did not provide any erosion control plan.
208. Sixth, the Application did not provided any discussion of potentially applicable
DEC permit requirements, such as, for example, the potential need for a SPDES permit for the
project.
209. Seventh, the Application did not provide a cost estimate “in accordance with the
standards” set forth in Chapter 280’s application requirements.
210. Eighth, the Permit purported to allow on-site sorting and processing of the C&D
Material, which is expressly prohibited under Chapter 280.
211. Simply put, the Application complied with almost none of the Chapter 280
requirements for issuance of a permit.
212. Nevertheless, the Town issued the Permit.

35 of 46
213. Pursuant to Woodstock Town Code § 280-8D, the Building Inspector retains
authority to revoke any permit issued under the Fill & Grading Law or under any other local law
in the event of a violation thereof.
214. Pursuant to Woodstock Town Code § 280-8F, the Town has the authority to enter
upon the Site and remove the C&D Material in order to “restore the land to an appropriate and safe
state” and charge the cost of same to the property owner.
215. The issuance of the Permit violated the express provisions of Chapter 280.
216. The continued presence of the C&D Material puts the Site in an inappropriate and
unsafe state.
217. For the above reasons, and other reasons stated herein, the Town’s issuance of the
Permit is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and should be vacated.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Article 78 – Failure to Comply with Town Code Chapter 192)
219. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4A to place C&D Material or any
other noncompostable solid waste on any property within the territorial boundaries of the Town.
220. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4B to place contaminated material
or any material that could be considered a pollutant on any property within the territorial
boundaries of the Town.
221. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4C to use any property within the
territorial boundaries of the Town for purposes of disposing of noncompostable solid waste.

36 of 46
222. The Town Code’s definition of “solid waste”, at Town Code § 192-2, includes
C&D Material without reservation.
223. It is, therefore, a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4C to use any property
within the territorial boundaries of the Town for purposes of disposing of C&D Material.
224. Beginning in or about December 2019, Conigliaro caused to be placed on the Site a
minimum of 2,800 yards of C&D Material.
225. At all relevant times, the Town has been aware that Conigliaro placed C&D
226. The C&D Material remains on the Site.
227. By issuing the Permit, the Town has allowed the importation and placement of
C&D Material in the Town of Woodstock by Conigliaro, in violation of Chapter 192 of the
Woodstock Town Code.
228. By issuing the Permit, the Town has allowed the disposal of noncompostable solid
waste on a property within the boundaries of the Town of Woodstock, in violation of Chapter 192
of the Woodstock Town Code.
229. The issuance of the Permit, which allows the continued storage of the C&D
Material on the Site, is, therefore, a blatant violation by the Town of Chapter 192 of the
Woodstock Town Code.

37 of 46
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Article 78 – Failure to Comply with the Town Zoning Ordinance)
232. Chapter 260 of the Town Code is the Town’s zoning ordinance.
233. Chapter 260 provides a schedule of uses, which sets forth the allowable property
uses in the Town.
234. Section 260-14 of the Town Code provides that “[a]ny use which is not listed
specifically as a permitted, special permit or accessory use in the schedule shall be considered a
prohibited use under this chapter.”
235. The Schedule of Uses does not provide for the operation of a solid waste facility, or
for the use of a residential property for purposes of placing solid waste or C&D.
236. Section 260-16 of the Town Code prohibits the operation of any dump, unless
owned or operated by the Town.
237. The Estate owns the Site and the Town does not operate it.
238. Accordingly, the placement and storage of the C&D Material on the Site constitutes
an unpermitted use under the Town’s zoning ordinance.
239. The issuance of the Permit, which allows the continued storage of the C&D
Material on the Site, is a violation of the Town’s zoning ordinance.

38 of 46
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment)
242. A justiciable controversy exists between the Petitioners and the Town with respect
to the arbitrary and capricious issuance of the Permit.
243. Petitioners have been and will continue to be harmed by the presence of theC&D
244. The C&D Material, which is contaminated, is unlawfully present on the Site and
needs to be immediately removed and disposed of offsite in order to prevent further harm to
Petitioners.
245. Pursuant to New York CPLR 3001, Petitioners are entitled to and demand
judgment against Respondent, declaring:
a. That the Town’s issuance of the Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse
of discretion;
b. That the Town’s issuance of the Permit was a violation of Town Code § 280-
6B;
c. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site presents a risk to
the environment and to human health and safety;
d. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a violation of
Town Code § 192-4A;
e. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a violation of
Town Code § 192-4B;

39 of 46
f. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a violation of
Town Code § 192-4C;
g. That the Town has the authority to remove the C&D Material from the Site and
recuperate its costs from the Estate and/or Conigliaro, pursuant to Town Code §
192-8;
h. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a violation of
Town Code Chapter 260;
i. That the Town be Ordered to immediately enter onto the Site and remove all
C&D Material thereon for appropriate offsite disposal;
j. That the Town be Ordered to immediately implement a program of
groundwater monitoring to ensure that contaminants from the C&D Material do
not reach the aquifer, the Eighmey Property, the Eighmey Well, or the Sawkill
Creek; and
k. That the Town be Ordered to immediately implement a sampling program at
the Eighmey Well in compliance with the WEC Letter’s recommendations.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Freedom of Information Law)
247. Petitioners submitted the Request to the Town on or about April 3, 2023.
248. The Request sought access to Records, as that term is defined in POL § 6-86.
249. Among other things, the Request sought access to all records pertaining to delivery
and placement of fill in 2019 and 2020; and all documents, communications, plans, drawings,

40 of 46
renderings, notes, diaries, and information pertaining to the evaluation, cleanup, remediation of the
fill material, and site restoration.
250. Under the Freedom of Information Law, the Town was required to acknowledge
receipt of the Request within 5 days of receipt.
251. The Town’s partial response to the Request was incomplete and substantially non-
responsive.
252. The Town has not claimed any exemptions, exclusions, or privileges applicable to
any records sought in the Request.
253. Accordingly, the Town has wrongfully constructively denied the Request.
254. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, Petitioners are entitled to and demand
judgment against the Town ordering the that:
a. The Town immediately produce all records sought in the Request; and
b. The Town pay Petitioners’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the
bringing of this action under the Freedom of Information Law.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners-Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
(1) Annul, vacate, and set aside the Town of Woodstock Building Permit No. 23-147;
(2) Declare:
a. That the Town’s issuance of the Permit was arbitrary, capricious, and an
abuse of discretion;
b. That the Town’s issuance of the Permit was a violation of Town Code §
280-6B;

41 of 46
c. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site presents a
risk to the environment and to human health and safety;
d. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a
violation of Town Code § 192-4A;
e. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a
violation of Town Code § 192-4B;
f. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a
violation of Town Code § 192-4C;
g. That the Town has the authority to remove the C&D Material from the
Site and recuperate its costs from the Estate and/or Conigliaro, pursuant
to Town Code § 192-8; and
h. That the continued presence of the C&D Material on the Site is a
violation of Town Code Chapter 260;
(3) Order the Town to immediately enter onto the Site and remove all C&D Material
thereon for appropriate offsite disposal;
(4) Order the Town to immediately implement a program of groundwater monitoring
to ensure that contaminants from the C&D Material do not reach the aquifer, the Eighmey
Property, the Eighmey Well, or the Sawkill Creek; and
(5) Order the Town to immediately implement a sampling program at the Eighmey
Well in compliance with the WEC Letter’s recommendations.
(6) Order the Town to immediately remove all of the C&D Material from the Site for
offsite disposal and implement a groundwater monitoring program to monitor for residual impacts;

42 of 46
(7) Order the Town to immediately make available all records requested in the April 3,
2023 Freedom of Information Law Request;
(8) Order the Town to pay Petitioners-Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees in
bringing the Freedom of Information Law claim; and
(9) Award Petitioners-Plaintiffs such other relief as this Court shall deem just, proper,
and equitable.
Dated: Newburgh, New York

June 21, 2023
CATANIA, MAHON & RIDER, PLLC
BY: /s John W. Furst, Esq.

JOHN FURST, ESQ.
641 Broadway
Newburgh, New York 12550
Tel.: 845-565-1100
Fax: 845-565-1999
E-Mail: jfurst@cmrlaw.com
JAMES S. ARRABITO, ESQ.

641 Broadway
Tel.: 845-565-1100
Fax: 845-565-1999
E-Mail: jarrabito@cmrlaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioners

Frank and Pam Eighmey

43 of 46
22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the

courts of New York State, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the
contentions contained in the foregoing verified petition and complaint are not frivolous.
Dated: Newburgh, New York

June 21, 2023
CATANIA, MAHON & RIDER, PLLC
BY: /s John W. Furst, Esq.

JOHN FURST, ESQ.
641 Broadway
Tel.: 845-565-1100
Fax: 845-565-1999
E-Mail: jfurst@cmrlaw.com

44 of 46
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ULSTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Application of
FRANK EIGHMEY, and PAM EIGHMEY, Index No: _____________
Petitioner-Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules, and Declaratory Judgment,
-against-
THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; THE TOWN BOARD OF

THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; FRANCIS HOFFMAN, in
His Capacity as the Building Inspector for the Town of
Woodstock; THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE
CONIGLIARO; and VINCENT CONIGLIARO AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE
CONIGLIARO
Respondent-Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:
COUNTY OF ULSTER )
45 of 46
46 of 46

Lawsuit Filed by Frank and Pam Eighmey Against Town of Woodstock

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Filed by Frank and Pam Eighmey Against Town of Woodstock

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: ULSTER COUNTY CLERK 06/22/2023 12:01 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

FRANK EIGHMEY, and PAM EIGHMEY, Index No: _____________

THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; THE TOWN BOARD OF

The Petitioner-Plaintiff, FRANK EIGHMEY and PAM EIGHMEY (together,

their Verified Complaint and Petition against Respondent-Defendant, THE TOWN OF

WOODSTOCK; THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF WOODSTOCK; FRANCIS

ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE CONIGLIARO; and VINCENT CONIGLIARO AS

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SALVATORE & LOUISE CONIGLIARO (collectively,

“Respondents”), alleges upon information and belief as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a hybrid special proceeding commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the New

Road, Shady, New York 12409 (“Site”).

disposing of same at an appropriate off-site facility and to implement a groundwater monitoring

program to protect the potable water well located on Petitioners’ property.

5. Respondent Town of Woodstock is a municipality of the State of New York.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

7. Respondent Francis Hoffman (“Hoffman,” and, together with the Town of

8. Respondent Estate of Salvatore and Louise Conigliaro (“Estate”) is the owner of

9. Respondent Vincent Conigliaro (“Conigliaro”) is the executor of the Estate.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

therefore, is timely pursuant to CPLR § 217(1).

the actions authorized by the Permit.

16. The Eighmey Property is hydrologically downgradient of the Site.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

concentrations in excess of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) soil

the Site (see Conrad Affidavit.)

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

intervals and during both the daylight and nighttime hours.

facilities, located in Saugerties, N.Y.

plant at Route 212 Saugerties, N.Y.

which originated primarily in the New York City metro area.

56,000 cubic yards.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

dumped on the Site by Karolys contained significant amounts of C&D Material.

Karolys bringing the C&D Material to the Site.

dumping C&D at 10 Church Road, according to a Hudson Valley 1 news report:

The Town of Woodstock is seeking state Department of

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

35. Woodstock Town Code Section 192-4 provides in full:

A. No person, firm or private or municipal corporation or

B. No material of any nature which could be or is considered to be

C. The use of any lands, including privately owned lands, with in

36. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4A to place C&D debris or

37. It is a violation of Woodstock Town Code § 192-4B to place contaminated material

boundaries of the Town.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

192-2, includes C&D Material without reservation.

feet in diameter in the material being dumped on the Site.

the Site’s shared boundary with the Eighmey Property.

toe of which extended nearly to the boundary of the Eighmey Property.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

than 2mm. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. B.

overall explanation of site stabilization. See Conrad Affidavit Exh. D.

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

Casciaro’s information request.

dumping of non-compostable solid waste).

step in and perform the removal and disposal itself.

FACTS RELATING TO THE TOWN’S KNOWLEDGE THAT FILL REMOVAL AT THE

benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene, benzo(B)fluoranthene, benzo(K)fluoranthene, chrysene,

Catania, Mahon & Rider, PLLC

beginning in January 2020.

same from the Estate.