Is david cook dating anyone woman to woman dating site

11-Mar-2019 12:25

Indeed, counsel for the Berger respondents expressly concedes that respondents have not performed the actions required of owners of dams ( see Berger Post-Hrg.Br., at 5 ["Neither Respondents Bergers nor Respondents Cooks have contested that there are obligations placed upon owners of hazard class C dams or that they have not taken actions that would be required of them if they were owners ."] [emphasis added]).Following the hearing, the parties filed post-hearing and reply briefs, the latter filed by all parties on or before May 4, 2012 ( id. On January 29, 2013, Department staff sent to the ALJ and respondents a copy of Knapp v Hughes (19 NY3d 672 [2012]), a decision issued by the New York Court of Appeals several months after briefing in this proceeding had closed.

In addition, as discussed below, I hold that the Knapp decision does not compel a different result.Built in or around 1898 for hydroelectric power generation, the dam is no longer used for that purpose but continues to impound the water in Honk Lake, which is used for recreational purposes ( see Hearing Report, at 3). Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, issued a Dam-Break Flood Analysis of the dam, and determined that, "[o]n the basis of its potential to cause downstream damage, in terms of either loss of life or economic loss, Honk Falls Dam is rated as a Class C, High Hazard category" (Ex. The record reflects that Department staff inspected this dam at least 14 times between 19 and noted deficiencies throughout this period ( see Exs. Every inspection report during that period stated that the dam was classified as Hazard Class "C" ( id. By letter dated September 6, 2006, the Department: (i) notified respondents that "records indicate that you are co-owners of the Honk Falls Dam" and were therefore responsible to operate and maintain the dam in a safe condition under ECL 15-0507; (ii) informed respondents that the dam was classified as "Class C - High Hazard" and that there was no emergency action plan (EAP) in place; (iii) identified deficiencies in the dam found during a 2006 inspection; and (iv) requested that respondents retain a licensed professional engineer to evaluate the dam and report on its condition ( see Ex. The Department followed up with letters in November 2006 and February 2007 ( id.Water from the lake flows over a spillway located approximately in the center of the dam. ), but the record does not reflect that respondents took any actions to retain an engineer to assess the condition of the dam or otherwise address the deficiencies found by the Department.The Court did not overrule Stewart or any of those prior cases; to the contrary, the Court intended to make the rule even clearer, and to correct any confusion that may have resulted from some decisions that interpreted certain words to be sufficient to rebut the presumption that underwater lands go with lands adjacent to water: "The effect of a grant should not turn on such fine distinctions as that between 'side' and 'edge.' To make a plain and express reservation of rights to underwater land, a grantor must do more than use the word "edge" or "shore" in a deed.He or she must say that land under water is not conveyed, in those words or in words equally clear in meaning .

In addition, as discussed below, I hold that the Knapp decision does not compel a different result.

Built in or around 1898 for hydroelectric power generation, the dam is no longer used for that purpose but continues to impound the water in Honk Lake, which is used for recreational purposes ( see Hearing Report, at 3). Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, issued a Dam-Break Flood Analysis of the dam, and determined that, "[o]n the basis of its potential to cause downstream damage, in terms of either loss of life or economic loss, Honk Falls Dam is rated as a Class C, High Hazard category" (Ex. The record reflects that Department staff inspected this dam at least 14 times between 19 and noted deficiencies throughout this period ( see Exs. Every inspection report during that period stated that the dam was classified as Hazard Class "C" ( id. By letter dated September 6, 2006, the Department: (i) notified respondents that "records indicate that you are co-owners of the Honk Falls Dam" and were therefore responsible to operate and maintain the dam in a safe condition under ECL 15-0507; (ii) informed respondents that the dam was classified as "Class C - High Hazard" and that there was no emergency action plan (EAP) in place; (iii) identified deficiencies in the dam found during a 2006 inspection; and (iv) requested that respondents retain a licensed professional engineer to evaluate the dam and report on its condition ( see Ex. The Department followed up with letters in November 2006 and February 2007 ( id.

Water from the lake flows over a spillway located approximately in the center of the dam. ), but the record does not reflect that respondents took any actions to retain an engineer to assess the condition of the dam or otherwise address the deficiencies found by the Department.

The Court did not overrule Stewart or any of those prior cases; to the contrary, the Court intended to make the rule even clearer, and to correct any confusion that may have resulted from some decisions that interpreted certain words to be sufficient to rebut the presumption that underwater lands go with lands adjacent to water: "The effect of a grant should not turn on such fine distinctions as that between 'side' and 'edge.' To make a plain and express reservation of rights to underwater land, a grantor must do more than use the word "edge" or "shore" in a deed.

He or she must say that land under water is not conveyed, in those words or in words equally clear in meaning .

I also adopt the ALJ's rejection of respondents' arguments that the dam is owned by the City of New York, the County of Ulster or Longboat, Inc. Br., at 11 [if the abutment wall is part of the dam, the Bergers "could be considered to own it in some manner"]).