SUPREME COURT
STATEOFNEWYORK
Albany County Clerk
Document Number 11260223
Rcvd 10/24/2012 12:00:35 PM
********************************************************************************COUNTY OF ALBANY
SUMMONS
Index No: 5959-12
DIANE ABELE, HOLLY ASHLEY, WILLIAM ASHLEY, BERNADETTE BAYLOR,
RICHARD BAYLOR, JR., TODD BRAMER, WENDY BRAMER, LINDA BRAUER,
BRYAN BRAUER, PATRICIA BUNNELLE, PAUL BUNNELLE, MELISSA BUTCHER,
BRUCE CONSOLAZIO, MONIQUE CONSOLAZIO, VICKY DAGER, CYNTHIA DEPEW,
VINCENT DEPEW, KATHERINE DILLENBECK, JOHN DILLENBECK, KEITH
DILLENBECK, STEVEN FULLER, DIANE FULLER, CHERYL GORINSHEK, MELVIN.
GROSS, W AVA GROSS, JOSEPH HARROD, VICTORIA HARROD, ROBERT HYSACK,
JAMES HICKS, MARIE HICKS, GARY LAMPHERE, PAMELA MARSHALL, ANDREW
MCEVOY, THERESA MCEVOY, HEIDI MILLINGTON, TOM MILLINGTON, ANDREW
MISURA, SUSAN MOSHER, CAROLYN RIESEL, ALFRED ROSS, GERALDINE ROSS,
JUNE SALAMONE, JAMES SALAMONE, JOHN SALAMONE, FRANCES SCUDIERI,
LUIGI SCUDIERI, STEPHEN SYNAKOWSKI, THERESA SYNAKOWSKI, WILLIAM
TIMMERMAN, TOBIAS TOBIN, PATRICK WILLIAMS, BONNIE WILLIAMS, GINA
MARIE VOLPE, PETER VOLPE, JAY TOMEI, PAMELA TOMEI, ANTHONY
SEMENTILLI, LISA SEMENTILLI, SHERRY DOUGLAS and MARK WAGNER,
Plaintiffs,
-vs.-
IBERDROLA USA, INC., IBERDROLA USA ENERGY HOLDINGS OF NY, LLC, THE
ENERGY NETWORK, LLC, IBERDROLA ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
IBERDROLA USA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, IBERDROLA ENERGY PROJECTS
INC., IBERDROLA RENEW ABLES, INC., IBERDROLA CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
PPM ENERGY, INC., ATLANTIC WIND USA LLC, ATLANTIC WIND LLC, ATLANTIC
RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION, HARDSCRABBLE WIND POWER LLC, CH2M
HILL, INC., MARK BASTASCH, P.E., INCE, and Corporation X, a fictitious name intended to
designate those corporations and/or employees, agents, and/or staff members of said corporations
who may also be liable to the Plaintiffs whose identities are presently unknown.
Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
You are hereby Sunnnoned to Answer the Complaint in this action, and to serve a copy
of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a Notice of
,,
Appearance on the Plaintiffs' attorney within twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons,
exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within
the State, or within thirty (30) days after completion of service where service is made in any
other manner. In case of your failure to appear or Answer, Judgment will be taken against you
by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs designate Albany County as the place of trial.
The basis of the venue is the· location of Defendant Iberd la USA, Inc.'s business:
Albany, New York.
Dated: October 22,2012
eFrancisco, Esq. (co-counsel)
Melo Scalfone, Esq. (co-counsel)
Atto eys for Plaintiffs
121 ast Water Street
Syra use, New York 13202
(315) 479-9000
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK
COMPLAINT
Index No:
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Albany County Clerk
Document Number 11260223
Rcvd 10/24/2012 12:00:35 PM
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
DIANE ABELE, HOLLY ASHLEY, WILLIAM ASHLEY,BERNADETTE BAYLOR,
RICHARD BAYLOR, JR., TODD BRAMER, WENDY BRAMER, LINDA BRAUER,
BRYAN BRAUER, PATRICIABUNNELLE, PAUL BUNNELLE, MELISSA BUTCHER,
BRUCE CONSOLAZIO, MONIQUE CONSOLAZIO, VICKY DAGER, CYNTHIA DEPEW,
VINCENT DEPEW, KATHERINE DILLENBECK, JOHN DILLENBECK, KEITH
DILLENBECK, STEVEN FULLER, DIANE FULLER, CHERYL GORINSHEK, MELVIN
GROSS, WAVA GROSS, JOSEPH HARROD, VICTORIA HARROD, ROBERT HYSACK,
JAMES HICKS, MARIE HICKS, GARY LAMPHERE, PAMELA MARSHALL, ANDREW
MCEVOY, THERESA MCEVOY, HEIDI MILLINGTON, TOM MILLINGTON, ANDREW
MISURA, SUSAN MOSHER, CAROLYN RIESEL, ALFRED ROSS, GERALDINE ROSS,
JUNE SALAMONE, JAMES SALAMONE, JOHN SALAMONE, FRANCES SCUDIERI,
LUIGI SCUDIERI, STEPHEN SYNAKOWSKI, THERESA SYNAKOWSKI, WILLIAM
TIMMERMAN, TOBIAS TOBIN, PATRICK WILLIAMS, BONNIE WILLIAMS, GINA
MARIE VOLPE, PETER VOLPE, JAY TOMEI, PAMELA TOMEI, ANTHONY
SEMENTILLI, LISA SEMENTILLI, SHERRY DOUGLAS and MARK WAGNER,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
IBERDROLA USA, INC., IBERDROLA USA ENERGY HOLDINGS OF NY, LLC, THE
ENERGY NETWORK, LLC, IBERDROLA ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
IBERDROLA USA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, IBERDROLA ENERGY PROJECTS
INC., IBERDROLA RENEW ABLES, INC., IBERDROLA CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
PPM ENERGY, INC., ATLANTIC WIND USA LLC, ATLANTIC WIND LLC, ATLANTIC
RENEW ABLE ENERGY CORPORATION, HARDSCRABBLE WIND POWER LLC, CH2M
HILL, INC., MARK BASTASCH, P.E., INCE, and Corporation X, a fictitious name intended to
designate those corporations and/or employees, agents, and! or staff members of said corporations
who may also be liable to the Plaintiffs whose identities are presently unknown.
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Jeff DeFrancisco, Esq. and Melody Scalfone,
Esq. as and for their Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states as follows:
'
PLAINTIFFS
1. Plaintiff, Diane Abele, is an individual with real property located in Herldmer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
2. Plaintiff, Holly Ashley, is an individual with real property located in Herldmer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
3. Plaintiff, William Ashley, is an individual with real property located in Herldmer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
4. Plaintiff, Bernadette Baylor, is an individual with real property located in
Herldmer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
5. Plaintiff, Richard Baylor, Jr., is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
6. Plaintiff, Todd Bramer, is an individual with real property located in Herldmer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
(
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
7. Plaintiff, Wendy Bramer, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
8. Plaintiff, Linda Brauer, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
9. Plaintiff, Bryan Brauer, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
10. Plaintiff, Patricia Bunnelle, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
11. Plaintiff, Paul Bunnelle, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
12. Plaintiff, Melissa Butcher, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
13. Plaintiff, Bruce Consolazio, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
14. Plaintiff, Monique Consolazio, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
15. Plaintiff, Vicky Dager, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
16. Plaintiff, Cynthia Depew, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
17. Plaintiff, Vincent Depew, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
18. Plaintiff, Katherine Dillenbeck, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
19. Plaintiff, John Dillenbeck, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
20. Plaintiff, Keith Dillenbeck, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
21. Plaintiff, Steven Fuller, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
22. Plaintiff, Diane Fuller, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
23. Plaintiff, Cheryl Gorinshek, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
24. Plaintiff, Melvin Gross, is an individual residing in Herkimer County, New York.
This Plaintiff, like the other Plaintiffs, has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to
the placement of the subject wind turbines in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein. ·
25. Plaintiff, Wava Gross, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
26. Plaintiff, Joseph Harrod, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
27. Plaintiff, Victoria Harrod, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
28. Plaintiff, Robert Hysack, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
29. Plaintiff, James Hicks, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
30. Plaintiff, Marie Hicks, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
31. Plaintiff, Gary Lamphere, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
32. Plaintiff, Pamela Marshall, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
33. Plaintiff, Andrew McEvoy, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
,,
34. Plaintiff, Theresa McEvoy, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
35. Plaintiff, Heidi Millington, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
36. Plaintiff, Tom Millington, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
3 7. Plaintiff, Andrew Misura, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York .. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
38. Plaintiff, Susan Mosher, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
39. Plaintiff, Carolyn Riesel, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
40. Plaintiff, Alfred Ross, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
4 I. Plaintiff, Geraldine Ross, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the , I
! I
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
42. Plaintiff, June Salamone, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
43. Plaintiff, James Salamone, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
44. Plaintiff, John Salamone, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
45. Plaintiff, Frances Scuderi, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
46. Plaintiff, Luigi Scudieri, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
4 7. Plaintiff, Stephen Synakowski, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
48. Plaintiff, Theresa Synakowski, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
49. Plaintiff, William Timmerman, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
50. Plaintiff, Tobias Tobin, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
5 I. Plaintiff, Patrick Williams, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
52. Plaintiff, Bonnie Williams, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiffhas suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
53. Plaintiff, Gina Marie Volpe, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
relates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
54. Plaintiff, Peter Volpe, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth. herein.
55. Plaintiff, Jay Tomei, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
' I
56. Plaintiff, Pamela Tomei, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
57. Plaintiff, Anthony Sementilli, is an individual with real property located in
Herkimer County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it
~elates to the placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as
more fully set forth herein.
58. Plaintiff, Lisa Sementilli, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
59. Plaintiff, Sherry Douglas, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
60. Plaintiff, Mark Wagner, is an individual with real property located in Herkimer
County, New York. This Plaintiff has suffered various damages and injuries as it relates to the
placement of the subject wind turbines being in close proximity to their home as more fully set
forth herein.
DEFENDANTS
61. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA, Inc. is a for-profit
corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of New York with its
principal locality being Albany County, New York.
62. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA, Inc. provided services
for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more
fully set forth herein.
63. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA Energy Holdings of NY,
LLC, with current entity name, The Energy Network, LLC is a for-profit corporation duly
organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Delaware.
64. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA Energy Holdings of NY,
LLC, with current entity name, The Energy Network, LLC, provided services for, assistance with
and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more fully set forth herein.
65. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Energy Services, LLC is a forprofit
corporation duiy organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Delaware.
66. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Energy Services, LLC,
provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power
Project as more fully set forth herein.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA Management
Corporation is a for-profit business duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state
of Delaware.
68. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola USA Management
Corporation provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble
Wind Power Project as more fully set forth herein.
69. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Energy Projects Inc.
is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of
Delaware.
70. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Energy Projects Inc. provided
services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as
more fully set forth herein.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendants, Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, formerly
PPM Energy, Inc., is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of
the state of Oregon.
72. Upon information and belief, Defendants, Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, formerly
PPM Energy, Inc. provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the
Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more fully set forth herein.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Corporate Services, Inc.
is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of New
York.
74. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Iberdrola Corporate Services, Inc.
provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power
Project as more fully set forth herein.
75. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Wind USA LLC
is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of
Delaware.
76. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Wind USA LLC provided
services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as
more fully set forth herein.
77. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Wind LLC
is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of
Oregon.
78. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Wind LLC provided services
for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more
fully set forth herein.
79. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation
is a for-profit corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of
Delaware.
80. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation
provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power
Project as more fully set forth herein.
81. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC is a forprofit
corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Oregon.
82. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC
provided services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power
Project as more fully set forth herein.
83. Upon information and belief, Defendant, CH2M HILL, Inc. is a for-profit
corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida.
84. Upon information and belief, Defendant, CH2M HILL, Inc. provided services for,
assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more fully
set forth herein.
85. Upon information and belief, Defendant MarkBastasch, P.E., INCE, was and is
an environmental engineer and/or consultant hired by and/or employed by and/or contracted by
and/or subcontracted by Defendants.
86. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE provided
services for, assistance with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as
more fully set forth herein.
87. Upon information and belief, Corporation X, a fictitious name intended to
designate those corporations and/or employees, agents, and/or staff members of said corporations
who may also be liable to the Plaintiffs whose identities are presently unknown.
88. Upon information and belief, Corporation X, provided services for, assistance
with and/or derived benefit from the Hardscrabble Wind Power Project as more fully set forth
herein.
FACTS
89. Within the Herkimer County area are 37 wind turbines known as the Hardscrabble
Wind Power Project (hereinafter "Hardscrabble").
90. Upon information and belief, the Hardscrabble project currently consists of 3 7
American-made Gamsea wind turbines that each stand on 1 00-meter towers, have 3 blades that
each weigh 7 tons, and are 467-feet tall to the tip of the blade.
91. Upon information and belief, each ofthe Defendants assisted in the planning,
researching, implementation and/or creation of the Hardscrabble project.
92. Upon information and belief, the purpose of the Hardscrabble wind turbines was
to create significant renewable energy.
93. Upon information and belief, some or all of the Defendants have received or will
receive significant fmancial benefits, tax benefits and/or other incentives for the construction of
the Hardscrabble wind turbines that well exceed $50 million dollars.
94. Upon information and belief, prior to the construction of the Hardscrabble project,
the Defendants represented to the Town of Fairfield and residents in the areas where the turbines
were placed that the subject wind turbines would not be noisy, would not adversely impact
neighboring houses, and there would not be any potential health risks; among other disclosures
and representations.
95. Upon information and belief, in or about 2006, Defendant Atlantic Renewables
LLC released "projected" noise levels that showed that the wind turbines would not go over 50
dB.
96. Upon information and belief, the aforementioned 2006 noise level study by
Defendant Atlantic Renewables LLC was based on projections for General Electric 1.5LSE, 389-
foot tall turbines, and not the Gamesa G90, 476-foot turbines, that Defendants collectively placed
in the Hardscrabble project.
97. Upon information and belief, in or about 2007, Defendants conducted an "ambient
'i
noise study" on Hardscrabble Road in the Town of Fairfield, to show how low the noise levels
were in this rural area prior to the turbine project.
98. Upon information and belief, the Defendants failed to adequately assess the effect
that the wind turbines would have on neighboring properties including, but not limited to, noise
creation, significant loss of use and enjoyment of property, interference with electrical
functioning of homes such as satellites, television, internet and telephone services, diminished
property values, destruction of scenic countryside, various forms of trespass and nuisance to
neighboring properties, and health concerns; among other effects.
99. Upon information and belief, despite the foregoing, and in opposition to many
residents who own property in close proximity to the wind turbines, in 20 I 0 the Defendants
erected 37 Gamesa G90 wind-turbines that stand 476 feet tall in and around the Towns of
Fairfield, Middleville, and Norway, New York.
I 00. Upon information and belief, the wind turbines are very close to residential
properties.
101. Upon information and belief, to effectuate the construction of the Hardscrabble
wind turbines, the Defendants paid and are continuing to pay certain residents for allowing the
Hardscrabble wind turbines to be placed on their property.
I 02. Upon information and belief, in 20 II, the Defendants conducted a noise study
that showed noise levels as high as 72 dB.
103. Upon information and belief, as a result of the aforementioned 2011 study, the
Defendants thereafter faulted their own study and conducted two additional noise studies to
demonstrate compliance with the Town of Fairfield's Local Ordinance I of2006, which sets the
maximum noise level at 50 dB.
I 04. Upon information and belief, these new studies conducted by the Defendants
show the average wind speeds, direction and expected percentage of operation.
I 05. Upon information and belief, the Defendants' new studies did not measure
the maximum wind speeds and do not measure the noise levels in the winter months, when the
noise levels are higher.
I 06. Upon information and belief, the Defendants' new studies fail to acknowledge
and assess the extent of the problems including the full log of Plaintiffs' complaints that are in
the thousands.
I 07. Upon information and belief, in 2011, the Defendants' wind-turbines only
produced 147,700 MWh of net energy, or just 22.8% of capacity. Upon information and belief,
this is below the 30% required capacity that the U.S. Department of Treasury's 1603 Program
Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits. Upon information and belief,
this energy production is also contrary to the intent and purpose of creating significant renewable
energy. Furthermore, upon information and belief, because the output from wind turbines are
intermittent, highly variable, largely uncontrollable and unpredictable, backup power generation
systems are placed at a cost and further reduce the net energy production of the turbines.
I 08. Upon information and belief, since the huge wind turbines in this project produce
very little electricity, when the government subsidies expire, the people in the Hardscrabble area
will be confronted with a poorly maintained and deteriorating wind energy facilities that may one
day become derelict.
I 09. Upon information and belief, the Hardscrabble wind turbines were built because
of huge governmental subsidies to the benefit of the Defendants. Upon information and belief,
there is little or no benefit to the public and when the turbines become old and no longer function
thereby littering the landscape and Herkimer County may be left looking like a vast industrial
junkyard.
110. Plaintiffs' homes and real property are within one mile of the wind turbines.
111. Upon information and belief, wind turbines of this magnitude should not have
been placed so close to residential properties.
112. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs have made many complaints related to
the wind turbines to the Defendants, but the Defendants have merely conducted questionable
noise studies in an effort to address noise compliance.
113. Upon information and belief, the Hardscrabble wind turbines also cause and/or
create infra and low frequency sounds that are affecting neighboring properties.
114. Upon information and belief, the Defendants' noise studies also fail to address the
aforesaid levels of infra and low frequency sounds by only focusing on audibility, and not on
other sensations such as vestibular and other symptoms that fit with the Wind-Turbine Syndrome
profile or other health concerns.
115. Upon information and belief, the wind turbines are causing such significant
problems and/or injuries that residents, including the Plaintiffs, are continuing to have many
difficulties on their properties, house values have been significantly compromised, and some
residents were even forced to abandon their homes; among other damages as set forth in this
complaint.
NEGLIGENCE
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
IBERDROLA USA ENERGY HOLDINGS OF NY, LLC, THE ENERGY NETWORK,
LLC, IBERDROLA USA, INC., IBERDROLA ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, IBERDROLA
USA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, IBERDROLA ENERGY PROJECTS INC.,
IBERDROLA RENEW ABLES, INC., IBERDROLA CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.,
PPM ENERGY, INC., ATLANTIC WIND USA LLC, ATLANTIC WIND LLC,
ATLANTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION, HARDSCRABBLE WIND
POWERLLC
116. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
117. Upon information and belief, Defendants Iberdrola USA Energy Holdings ofNY,
LLC, The Energy Network, LLC, Iberdrola USA, Inc., Iberdrola Energy Services, LLC,
lberdrola USA Management Corporation, Iberdrola Energy Projects, Inc., Iberdrola Renewables,
Inc., Iberdrola Corporate Services, Inc., PPM Energy, Inc., Atlantic Wind USA LLC, Atlantic
Wind LLC, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation, and Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC
assisted and/or were primarily responsible for researching, designing, building, testing,
implementing and/or creating the Hardscrabble project.
118. Upon information and belief, the Hardscrabble project was a for-profit project for
which each of the aforesaid Defendants received and! or continue to receive financial benefits.
119. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently
failed to adequately assess and/or test the site of the Hardscrabble project to determine whether
the subject project would be feasible and/or produce reasonable benefits to the community.
120. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently
failed to assess which wind turbines, if any, would be most suited for the area given the location
of nearby residential property.
i i
121. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently
created and/or assisted in the creation of the massive wind-turbine structures that have caused
and continue to cause significant harm to residents in the area of the turbines.
122. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid Defendants carelessly and negligently
failed to adequately disclose the true nature and effects that the wind turbines would have on the
community, including the Plaintiffs' homes.
123. Upon information and belief, the aforesaid Defendants were careless, negligent,
professionally negligent and/or deviated from professional standards of care that includes, but is
not limited to, failing to appropriately assess the site; failing to appropriately test the site; failing
to perform or request to be performed appropriate tests for the site; failing to sufficiently study
the wind turbine arrays; failing to adequately determine which turbines, if any, would be most
suited for the area; utilizing wind turbines that were inappropriate for the site; placing wind
turbines too close to residential properties; placing wind turbines that were too large for the area;
causing permanent and irreparable harm and damage to neighboring properties; failing to
adequately represent what effects the turbines would have on the community and the surrounding
areas, including the Plaintiffs' homes; carelessly and negligently representing material facts and
information to Plaintiffs and the community; intentionally misrepresenting material facts and
information to the Plaintiffs and the community; among other acts of carelessness and
negligence.
124. Upon information and belief, as a result of the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have
suffered significant and permanent injuries as more fully set forth herein.
125. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
NEGLIGENCE
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE FOLLOWING:
CH2M HILL, INC. AND MARK BASTASCH, P.E., INCE
126. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
127. Upon information and belief, CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE,
were retained for financial compensation by all or some of the co-Defendants to perform an
impact assessment on the real property in proximity to the Hardscrabble project.
128. Upon information and belief, the studies performed by CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark
Bastasch, P.E., INCE lacked a total and real assessment as it related to the potential harm.
129. Upon information and belief, it is a requirement of acoustic engineers, pursuant to
the International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering and civil engineers (as
per New York State licensure) to protect public safety, health, and welfare.
130. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew or should have known that the
wind turbines erected produce acoustic pressure pulsations that effect peoples' health.
131. Upon information and belief, it was the responsibility of the CH2M Hill, Inc. and
Mark Bastasch, P.E., INCE, to advise their clients and the public, including Plaintiffs, of the
potential for adverse health risks and other impacts to property in the Hardscrabble project area.
132. Upon information and belief, Defendants CH2M Hill, Inc. and Mark Bastasch,
P.E., INCE, were negligent, careless, professionally negligent, and/or deviated from generally
accepted standards of care in regards to the services and representations made and provided to
the community and Plaintiffs including, but not limited to: carelessly and negligently performing
tests; carelessly and negligently failing to perform appropriate tests; failing to sufficiently test the
effects of the wind turbine arrays; carelessly and negligently failing to perform an appropriate
assessment of the site; failing to appropriately represent facts pertaining to the testing of the site;
misrepresenting material facts regarding the site; failing to determine what wind turbines, if any,
wonld be most appropriate for the Hardscrabble product; failing to appropriately determine
distances that the subject wind turbines shonld be from residential areas, including the Plaintiffs'
homes and real property; causing permanent and irreparable harm and damage to neighboring
properties; among other acts of carelessness and negligence.
133. Upon information and belief, as a resnlt of the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have
snffered significant and permanent injuries as more fully set forth herein.
134. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
PRIVATE NUISANCE
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
135. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
136. Plaintiffs have a private interest in their land and Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have interfered with and/or invaded their interest by conduct that was negligent,
careless, intentional and/or unreasonable.
13 7. Upon information and belief, the wind turbines constitute a private nuisance
because: (i) the wind turbines create significant noise; (ii) the wind turbines interfere with the
private enjoyment and use of Plaintiffs' properties; (iii) the wind turbines cause blinking,
flashing and/or flickering effects that impact neighboring properties; and (iv) the wind turbines
are adversely affecting property values; among other private nuisances.
138. Upon information and belief, the nuisance was created by the acts of the
Defendants thereby causing injury to the Plaintiffs as set forth in this complaint.
139. The nuisance is also substantial in nature as set forth in this complaint, in that the·
nuisan~e is unreasonable in character causing significant damages as set forth in this complaint,
and the nuisance affects the rights of Plaintiffs to use and enjoy their land.
140. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
PUBLIC NUISANCE
TIDRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
ALL DEFENDANTS
141. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
142. Plaintiffs allege they are private citizens and have standing to bring suit against
Defendants' for negligent, careless, intended and/or unreasonable conduct that constitutes public
nuisance because it is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.
143. Upon information and belief, the area utilized for the Hardscrabble project takes
away from the ability of the area for use for tourism and historic value in addition to having other
detrimental affects and/or impact to the public in the area of the wind turbines.
144. Upon information and belief, the Hardscrabble project also makes the area
significantly less attractive and significantly limits the public's right to use the property.
145. Upon information and belief, moreover, the lifespan of the subject turbines are
only approximately 20 years. Once the turbines cease to function or fall into a state of disrepair,
and since there is no plan or agreement between the Defendants and the county to remove the
turbines once their beneficial use has ceased, permanent and irreparable harm will be caused to
the area.
146. Upon information and belief, as a result of the aforesaid and other public
nuisances, the Plaintiffs and the public have suffered significant and permanent damages and! or
injuries and/or will incur significant and/or permanent injuries in the future as more fully set
forth herein.
14 7. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
148. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
149. Plaintiffs allege that they own and, therefore, have a lawful right to possess the
real property on which they live. Plaintiffs allege that the giant wind turbines that Defendants
have placed around their property results in a trespass by the Defendants due to invasion of their
land by noises, lights, flickering, and low-frequency vibrations which penetrate their homes,
thereby destroying the use and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs' land; among other trespass.
150. Upon information and belief, this trespass has caused injury to the Plaintiffs by
diminishing their property values along with diminishing the use and enjoyment of their
properties; among other damages as more fully set forth herein.
151. As a result of the aforesaid trespass, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer
the damages as set forth herein.
152. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
153. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
154. Upon information and belief, Defendants' conduct violates statutes designed to
protect the interests of persons in Plaintiffs' position.
155. Upon information and belief, the subject wind turbines regularly violate the Town
of Fairfield's Local Ordinance 1 of 2006.
156. Upon information and belief, Defendants criteria for the wind turbines are beyond
the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health
Organization to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
157. Upon information and belief, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, the
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer the damages as set forth herein.
158. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
159. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
160. Upon information and belief, Defendants' wind turbines were in a defective
condition and said defects were a substantial factor in causing injury to Plaintiffs.
161. Upon information and belief, the Gamesa G90 wind turbines placed by
Defendants were placed in the Hardscrabble project for the purpose and marmer they were
normally intended.
162. Upon information and belief, it is the Defendants' fault that Plaintiffs were
injured and Plaintiffs' could not have prevented the damage or injury by reasonable care having
discovered the defect and their perceived danger.
163. Upon information and belief, even if Plaintiffs' exercised reasonable care, the
Plaintiffs could not have averted their injury or damages.
164. Upon information and belief, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiffs
have suffered and continue to suffer the damages as set forth herein.
165. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
166. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this complaint as
if fully set forth herein.
167. Based on the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants acted
willfully, recklessly, were grossly negligent, and/or acted with a conscious disregard with regard
to each of the allegations set forth in this complaint.
168. Upon information and belief, Defendants' conduct rises to a level sufficient for an
award of punitive damages.
169. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
DAMAGES
170. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the paragraphs set forth in this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
171. Based on the aforesaid, Plaintiffs allege that all of the Defendants have
caused significant damage to the Plaintiffs and that such damage is substantial, irreparable,
and was proximately caused by the acts of the Defendants as set forth in this complaint.
172. More specified damages for each Plaintiff, includes, but is not limited to,
the following.
173. Plaintiff, Diane Abele, is a self-employed dairy farmer who works fulltime
on her fann and has lost many hours of work because of the Defendants' windturbines.
Plaintiff Diane Abele experiences frequent headaches from lack of sleep and
constant stress due·to Defendants' wind-turbines. Plaintiff Diane Abele used to perform
enjoyable activities outside such as work in her garden, frequently eat outside, enjoy the view of
her landscape and countryside, perform dairy fann related activities outside, all of which
she is no longer able to do or has been significantly less enjoyable since Defendants' wind
turbines were installed. The wind-turbine noise is also very distractive to her dog. Plaintiff
Diane Abele cannot sleep and cannot open the windows of her house because of the disruptive
noise. She experiences noise from the turbines that she describes as louder than an airport, which
she can hear over the tractors and milk pump on her fann. Plaintiff Diane Abele has also lost
profits from her dairy farm because the cows have been less productive since Defendants built
the turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of her
property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
174. Plaintiff, Holly Ashley, has difficulty sleeping, meditating, relaxing on her deck,
planting in her yard, and listening to AM radio; all after the wind-turbines were operational.
Plaintiff Holly Ashley also has had sediment in her drinking water since Defendants installed the
wind-turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of her
property .. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
175. Plaintiff, William Ashley, has difficulty sleeping, cannot have his windows open,
cannot enjoy the sound of nature, cannot enjoy landscaping on his property, and has a substantial
amount of sediment in his drinking water, all since Defendants installed the wind-turbines. 1bis
Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
176. Plaintiff, Bernadette Baylor, was unable to sell her house and land after the windturbines
were installed. Plaintiff Bernadette Baylor, because of the Defendants' wind-turbine
noise, abandoned her home and now rents a house, forcing her to file for bankruptcy. This
Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
177. Plaintiff, Richard Baylor, Jr., was unable to sell his house and land after the windturbines
were installed. Plaintiff Richard Baylor, Jr., because of Defendants' wind-turbine noise,
abandoned his home and now rents a house, forcing him to file for bankruptcy. This Plaintiff has
suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
178. Plaintiff, Todd Bramer, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, now finds it
less enjoyable to have a quiet night on his porch or sitting by his outside fireplace. Plaintiff Todd
Bramer bought his property on a hill in large part because of the view of the Mohawk Valley,
which Defendants' wind-turbines have destroyed, as all he can now see are wind-turbines.
Plaintiff Todd Bramer can no longer hunt or trap on his land with his step-son because the
industrial wind-turbines have scared away the game. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss
of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on
the value of the property; among other losses.
179. Plaintiff, Wendy Bramer, has lived in her current home for more than 34 years.
Because of the wind-turbines, Plaintiff Wendy Bramer wishes to sell her property, but has been
unable to do so. Since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, Plaintiff Wendy Bramer is no
' !
longer able to experience the peace and tranquility ofliving in the country. Plaintiff Wend
Bramer's enjoyment of time outside is now overshadowed by the "whooshing" noise of the
wind-turbines and the flashing red lights at night, which seems to her like an airport. Plaintiff
Wendy Bramer's view has been destroyed by the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Wendy Bramer's
teenage son Adam Bramer has experienced dizziness and sinus problems since Defendants
~stalled the turbines. Plaintiff Wendy Bramer's adult daughter has a seizure disorder and carmot
visit her parents at their home because of the wind-turbine flicker and noise. Plaintiff Wendy
Bramer also has cloudy drinking water. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of
enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
180. Plaintiff, Linda Brauer, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has severe
difficulty sleeping at night because of the wind-turbine noise. Plaintiff Linda Brauer can no
longer enjoy her property and there is a foreclosure on her home because of the wind-turbines.
This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
181. Plaintiff, Bryan Brauer, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, can no
Longer hunt, swim, barbeque, target shoot, bike ride, host outdoor parties, play catch with his
children, watch television with the windows open, or these activities have been considerably less
enjoyable. Plaintiff Bryan Brauer can no longer get a good night's sleep, as the wind-turbines are
loud enough to wake him up even with the windows closed. It is presently unknown whether
additional physical injuries are related to the wind turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
182. Plaintiff, Patricia Bnnnelle, owns/operates a farm on her property. Plaintiff
Patricia Bnnnelle wanted to establish agritourism on her farm, but the wind-turbines have
eliminated this potential. Since Defendants installed the wind turbines, Plaintiff Patricia Bunnelle
now fmds all outdoor activities less enjoyable, such as relaxing by her ponds, bird watching,
horseback riding, cross-country skiing, hiking, and gardening. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
183. Plaintiff, Paul Bnnnelle, owns/operates a farm on his property. Plaintiff Paul
Bnnnelle wanted to establish agritourism on his farm, but the wind-turbines have eliminated this
potential. Since Defendants installed the wind turbines, Plaintiff Paul Bmmelle now finds all
outdoor activities less enjoyable, such as entertaining and gardening. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
184. Plaintiff, Melissa Butcher, has difficulty falling asleep because of the windturbine
noise and "flicker." Plaintiff Melissa Butcher experiences armoying, constant noise from
the wind-turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their
property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
185. Plaintiff, Bruce Consolazio, has had his view destroyed by the wind-turbines.
Plaintiff Bruce Consolazio can no longer watch television because the wind-turbines have
affected the reception. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of
their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
186. Plaintiff, Monique Consolazio, has lost enjoyment of her home/property due to
severe wind-turbine noise. Plaintiff Monique Consolazio's dogs are now nervous, barking
excessively and pacing because of the wind-turbine noise. Plaintiff Monique Consolazio also
experiences constant problems with her television reception. Defendant Hardscrabble Wind
Power, LLC, offered her $2,000 on June 30, 2011 -in exchange for a release from all liabilitybecause
the construction of the wind turbines caused a decline in her television reception.
PlaintiffMonique Consolazio declined this offer. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of
enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
187. Plaintiff, Vicky Dager's, allergies have worsened since the wind-turbines were
installed; among other health issues. Ms. Dager has not been able to enjoy her property like she
used to. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The
wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
188. Plaintiff, Cynthia Depew, experiences constant ringing in her ears since
Defendants installed the turbines. The turbines also cause her anxiety. Due to the constant windturbine
noise, Plaintiff Cynthia Depew can no longer enjoy sitting outside her home. Despite her
house being fully insulated and with all new windows, Plaintiff Cynthia Depew can hear the
turbine noise inside her home. Defendants' wind-turbines have taken away from the scenic
beauty of her property. Furthermore, on windy days, Plaintiff Cynthia Depew experiences noise
and vibrations that sounds like a jet is going to crash into her home. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
189. Plaintiff, Vincent Depew, experiences high anxiety, stress, and depression
because of the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Vincent Depew is no longer able to enjoy family events,
gardening; sitting outside, and the view of the surrounding area because of the wind-turbines.
Plaintiff Vincent Depew cannot be inside or outside his home without hearing and feeling the
vibrations of the turbines. Plaintiff Vincent Depew has invested his life savings into his home.
This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
190. Plaintiff, Katherine Dillenbeck, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines,
cannot sit outside and enjoy her property and has to shut the windows of her home because of the
noise. Plaintiff Katherine Dillenbeck's dog, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has
been nervous and barks significantly more. Plaintiff Katherine Dillenbeck has had her property
listed on and off, but has been unable to sell her property. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant
loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact
on the value of the property; among other losses.
191. Plaintiff, John Dillenbeck, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, cannot sit
outside and enjoy his property and has to shut the windows of his home because of the noise.
Plaintiff John Dillenbeck's dog, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has been nervous
and barks significantly more. Plaintiff John Dillenbeck has had his property listed on and off,
but has been unable to sell his property. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of
enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
192. Plaintiff, Keith Dillenbeck, is a self-employed dairy fanner who has lost many
hours of work time because of the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck has experienced
increased stress, nervousness, a feeling of being on edge, and his sleep has been disturbed.
Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck experiences constant, irritating noise from the wind-turbines. Upon
information and belief, the wind-turbines have affected Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck's cows,
causing a loss of milk production. Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck cannot open his windows in the
summertime because of the wind-turbine noise. Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck is constantly
distracted by the wind-turbine noise, which to him sounds like a propeller plane outside his door.
Plaintiff Keith Dillenbeck has invested a large amount of money in his 36 year old dairy
operation of which the turbines have adversely impacted his business. This Plaintiff has suffered
a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
193. Plaintiff, Steven Fuller, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, can no
longer enjoy sitting outside because of the light flickering from the wind-turbines. The turbines
also cause noise both inside and outside of the home, disturbing the peace and making it difficult
to enjoy living there. The wind-turbines have affected Plaintiff Steven Fuller's television,
internet, and cellular-phone reception. Plaintiff Steven Fuller's daughter experiences frequent
headaches since Defendants installed the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Steven Fuller's neighbor has
wind-turbines on his property, and Plaintiff Steven Fuller cannot build onto his house or
driveway because it would come within 1,250 feet of a wind-turbine. Plaintiff Steven Fuller has
invested an estimated $170,000 in his house that he cannot complete. Plaintiff Steven Fuller used
to have a beautiful view of Mohawk Valley, but can now only see wind-turbines. Plaintiff Steven
Fuller is woken up frequently by the wind-turbine noise. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant
loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact
on the value of the property; among other losses.
194. Plaintiff, Diane Fuller, works from home full-time as a medical biller/coder.
Pla!ntiff Diane Fuller experiences frequent headaches and stress, particularly during working
hours because of the constant noise and flickering. Plaintiff also experiences interference with
her internet connection. Plaintiff Diane Fuller no longer enjoys sitting outside both because of
the obstructed view and the noise that the turbines create. The wind-turbines have affected
Plaintiff Diane Fuller's television, internet, and cellular-phone reception. Plaintiff Diane Fuller's
daughter has very frequent headaches. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment
and use of their property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the
property; among other losses.
195. Plaintiff, Cheryl Gorinshek, had a severe case of vertigo that resulted in other
medical complications. It is presently unknown which of her medical complications are related to
the wind turbines. Plaintiff Cheryl Gorinshek has been disturbed by the wind-turbine noise and
red-flashing lights at night. The wind turbines have affected this Plaintiff's ability to enjoy and
use her property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
196. Plaintiff, Melvin Gross, can no longer enjoy being outside on his property because
of the noise and reflections from the wind-turbines, and can no longer enjoy watching wild
animals because the wind-turbines have scared them off. In addition to not being able to enjoy
his property, the wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
197. Plaintiff, Wava Gross, has trouble sleeping at night because of the wind-turbine
noise and reflections, and can no longer enjoy sitting outside. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of enjoyment and use oftheir property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
198. Plaintiff, Joseph Harrod, has daily, severe headaches and other complications
because of the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Joseph Harrod is unable to enjoy outdoor activities such
as picnics, family gatherings, and gardening because of the wind-turbines. This Pla1ntiffhas
suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
199. Plaintiff, Victoria Harrod, has intense migraine headaches because of the windturbines.
Plaintiff Victoria Harrod is unable to enjoy gardening, picnics with family, reading
resting outside, and has trouble sleeping because of the noise and flickering from the windturbines.
This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property.
The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other
losses.
200. Plaintiff, Robert Hysack, experiences very annoying noise from the wind-turbines
that sound like airplanes that never land, and cannot keep his windows open. This Plaintiff has
suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of their property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
201. Plaintiff, James Hicks, purchased his property as a summer home and has spent a
significant amount of money on improvements. Plaintiff James Hicks bought the property
because of the former peace and quiet, which the wind-turbine noise and flickering has
destroyed. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of his property. The
wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
202. Plaintiff, Marie Hicks, can no longer enjoy her formerly quiet land because of
wind-turbine noise, which has also scared off the wildlife. Plaintiff Marie Hicks has been
affected by wind-turbine noise, red lights at night, and flicker at sundown. This Plaintiff has
suffered a significant loss of enjoyment and use of her property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
203. Plaintiff, Gary Lamphere, is self-employed and loses about four hours/$1 00 per
day due to the wind-turbine noise. Plaintiff Gary Lamphere has headaches and other health
related issues since Defendants installed the wind-turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significantloss of enjoyment and use of his property. The wind turbines have also had a
negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
204. Plaintiff, Pamela Marshall, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has had
increased blood pressure and other health issues. Plaintiff Pamela Marshall experiences windturbine
noise that sounds like an airport in her backyard with jets taking off. Plaintiff Pamela
Marshall has four wind-turbines adjacent to her property. Plaintiff Pamela Marshall has been
approached by two logging companies that want the wood on her property; however, if she were
to cut down the trees, the wind-turbines would further affect the use and enjoyment of her
property even more. The wind-turbines near Plaintiff Pamela Marshall have interfered with her
television and cellular-phone reception. Plaintiff Pamela Marshall has been unable to sell her
property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among
other losses.
205. Plaintiff, Andrew McAvoy, bought his property in or about July 2002
with the intention of building an alpaca farm. In or about 2004 Plaintiff Andrew McAvoy bought
alpacas. Since Defendants constructed the turbines, Plaintiff Andrew MeA voy has been forced to
suspend this operation, which he invested considerable time and money into. This Plaintiff has
also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
206. Plaintiff, Theresa McAvoy, her property in or about July 2002 with
the intention of building an alpaca farm. In or about 2004 Plaintiff Theresa McAvoy bought
alpacas. Since Defendants constructed the turbines, Plaintiff Theresea MeA voy has been forced
to suspend this operation, which she invested considerable time and money into. This Plaintiff
has also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have
also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
207. Plaintiff, Heidi Millington, cannot not sleep at night and cannot enjoy normal
daily activities because the wind-turbine noise sounds like a jet that hovers over her house and I
I
never lands. Plaintiff Heidi Millington has a farm, and everything that she does is now affected
by the frustration of four wind-turbines adjacent to her house. Plaintiff Heidi Millington cannot
get away from the turbines, and her family does not want to visit because of the turbines.
Plaintiff Heidi Millington experiences constant ringing in her ears, migraines, and nausea from
the noise and flickering of the turbines. The turbines also affect her television signal. This
Plaintiff has also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment ofthe property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
208. Plaintiff, Tom Millington, is a self-employed farmer who has lost many work
hours because of the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Tom Millington can no longer enjoy peace and
quiet or outdoor activities, including feeding his cows or cropping his fields. Upon information
and belief, Defendants' wind-turbines have made his cows nervous and less productive. Plaintiff
Tom Millington's family and friends no longer want to visit his home because of the loud, jetlike
noise from the turbines. Plaintiff Tom Millington cannot sleep at night nor can he enjoy his
home like he used to. He has also wasted countless hours talking to Defendants about the
various disturbances the turbines cause. This Plaintiff has also suffered a significant loss of use
and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value
of the property; among other losses.
209. Plaintiff, Andrew Misura, can no longer hike, hunt, sit in his yard, or barbeque
because of the disturbances from the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Andrew Misura and his family used
to enjoy sitting outside their home, talking, cooking, and eating outdoors. The constant
"whoosing" from the wind-turbine blades drives him crazy, and his family is no longer able to
enjoy their camp. Plaintiff Andrew Misura bought the property for hunting, as its location was a
perfect funnel for wildlife. The deer, bear, turkeys, and grouse that were abundant on Plaintiff
Andrew Misura' s land are no longer there. Plaintiff Andrew Misura bought his pr()perty as a
peaceful respite from city life, but now only sees the giant spinning blades of three wind-turbines
and the accompanying flickering oflight as they pass across the sun. This makes it impossible
for Plaintiff Andrew Misura to hear and spot approaching deer and other wildlife. This Plaintiff
has also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have
also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
210. Plaintiff, Susan Mosher, has anxiety and heart palpitations because of the windturbines.
Plaintiff Susan Moser cannot sit outside or mow her lawn when the sun is out because
of the flickering from the turbines. Plaintiff Susan Moser also has sediment in her drinking
water. This Plaintiff has also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other
losses.
211. Plaintiff, Carolyn Riesel, has increased blood pressure since Defendants installed
the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Carolyn Riesel can no longer mow her lawn and cannot have her
windows open due to the flickering and noise from the turbines. Plaintiff Carolyn Riesel is
affected by the grinding, droning, and whooshing noises of the turbines, which interferes with
daily activities such as normal conversation and walking. The constant noise makes Plaintiff
Carolyn Riesel nervous. The noise comes into PlaintiffCaro1ynRiesel's house, and when the
wind-turbines change direction they make a startling noise. Plaintiff Carolyn Riesel can no
}onger enjoy hearing birds and the creek behind her house, and no longer has a television signal.
This Plaintiff has also suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses. ',
I i
212. Plaintiff, Alfred Ross, bought land with the intent of constructing a retirement
home. Plaintiff Alfred Ross has spend thousands of dollars on architects, surveyors, contractors,
well-drillers and water-testing professionals, but because of the proximity of the turbines,
Plaintiff Alfred Ross put the construction project on hold, despite the dream of returning to
where his remaining family lives. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and
enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the
property; among other losses.
213. Plaintiff, Geraldine Ross, bought land with the intent of constructing a retirement
home. Plaintiff Geraldine Ross has spend thousands of dollars on architects, surveyors,
contractors, well-drillers and water-testing professionals, but because of the proximity of the
turbines, Plaintiff Geraldine Ross put the construction project on hold, despite the dream of
returning to where her remaining family lives. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of
use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
214. Plaintiff, June Salamone, in 2012, was admitted to the hospital for partial thirdnerve
palsy, tension headaches, and elevated ICP. Plaintiff June Salamone has increased
headaches, nervous/tension feelings of panic and anxiety, dizziness, and sleep disturbance due to
the wind turbines. Plaintiff June Salamone has spend less time outside due to wind-turbine noise,
which has interfered with gardening, yard work, playing with grandchildren, hiking, walking,
and picnics/cookouts. Plaintiff June Salamone is unable to open her windows due to excessive
noise, which, especially at nighttime, comes through the house even when the windows are
closed. Plaintiff June Salamone experiences sound that is like a jet engine overhead that never
lands. The thumping and whooshing sounds from the turbines permeates through Plaintiff June
Salamone's body. Plaintiff June Salamone cannot get an uninterrupted night of sleep. The two
turbines near Plaintiff June Salamone's home create flick~rs that cast shadows through her
house, causing a feeling of imbalance and dizziness, like turning lights on and off.
This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind
turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
215. Plaintiff, James Salamone, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has
experienced constant ringing and pressure in his ears, which turns into earaches and pounding
headaches that last for days. Plaintiff James Salamone has become very stressed and irritable and
has disturbed sleep. Sometimes Plaintiff James Salamone experiences sound like a jet-plane
stuck over his house, and other times it sounds like fighter jets taking off. Plaintiff James
Salamone experiences noise much louder at night. The flickering lights from the turbines
significantly bother Plaintiff James Salamone and he cannot sit outside of his house. This
Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines
have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
216. Plaintiff, John Salamone, is unable to enjoy barbequing outside with his family,
playing with his dog, hiking, hunting, yard work, or gardening, all since Defendants installed the
turbines. Plaintiff John Salamone is unable to open the windows of his house because the turbine
noise enters the house, causing aggravation and nervousness. The turbines sound like an
overhead plane at times, a thumping sound at others. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss
of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
217. Plaintiff, Frances Scuderi, experiences turbine noise such that she cannot sit on
her deck, and at night she is bothered by the flickering red lights. Plaintiff Frances Scuderi has
also lost television reception. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment
of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property;
among other losses.
218. Plaintiff, Luigi Scudieri, experiences turbine noise such that he cannot sit on his
deck, and at night he is bothered by the flickering red lights. Plaintiff Luigi Scuderi has also lost
television reception. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the
property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among
other losses.
219. Plaintiff, Stephen Synakowski, since Defendants installed the turbines, cannot sit
on his back deck and enjoy the view. Plaintiff Stephen Synakowski can see 17 wind-turbines
from his property, and is distracted by the noise. This Plaintiff has snffered a significant loss of
use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
220. Plaintiff, Theresa Synakowski, since Defendants installed the turbines, cannot sit
on her back deck and enjoy the view: Plaintiff Theresa Synakowski can see 17 wind-turbines
from her property, and is distracted by the noise. This Plaintiff has snffered a significant loss of
use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
221. Plaintiff, William Timmerman, since Defendants installed the turbines, cannot
enjoy the outdoors and is unable to sleep some nights. Plaintiff William Timmerman has posttraumatic
stress disorder from his military service, and the constant wind-turbine noise has made
this increasingly difficult for him to deal with. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of
use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the
value of the property; among other losses.
222. Plaintiff, Tobias Tobin, built a house for retirement, but the turbines have
diminished the value of his home. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and
enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the
property; among other losses.
223. Plaintiff, Patrick Williams, since Defendants installed the turbines, can no longer
enjoy cookouts with friends, sitting outside at night and enjoying the sounds of nature, and is
unable to enjoy the sun because the flickering effect from the turbines force him to close his
blinds. Plaintiff Patrick Williams has difficulty sleeping. Plaintiff Patrick Williams' dogs have
been affected by the turbines, and bark and/or pace when the wind-turbines are on. This Plaintiff
has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
224. Plaintiff, Bonnie Williams, since Defendants installed the turbines, can no longer
enjoy her backyard because of the noise and is disturbed by the light flickering. Plaintiff Bonnie
Williams has dogs that bark non-stop when they are outside. Plaintiff Bonnie Williams' sleep is
interrupted by the noise from the turbines. Plaintiff Bonnie Williams' daughter Rebecca has
experienced a decrease in her grades at school since the turbines were installed and she has had a
difficult time fmding a quiet place to do her homework. Plaintiff Bonnie Williams' satellite
reception also sometimes goes black. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and
enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the
property; among other losses.
225. Plaintiff, Peter Volpe, is a professional opera singer who finds it difficult to teach
voice lessons or practice in his home with the windows open due to the noise disturbance from
the turbines. Plaintiff Peter Volpe loses three to five hours of work time during the smnmer, or
$300 to $500 per day. Plaintiff Peter Vole no longer enjoys sitting on his back patio due to the
incessant noise and flicker, which is annoying and destroys the beautiful view of Mohawk Valley
that he once had. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the
property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the property; among
other losses.
226. Plaintiff Gina Marie Volpe, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, has
experienced increased stress and other health problems because of the wind-turbine noise.
Plaintiff Gina Marie Volpe can no longer enjoy playing in her yard with her dogs, barbequing,
watching her outdoor theater, relaxing, or having friends or family to her house because of the
'
constant thumping of the turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and
enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative impact on the value of the
property; among other losses.
227. Plaintiff Jay Tomei, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines,
cannot enjoy outdoor activities on his property because of the flickering and noise. Because of
the wind-turbines, Plaintiff Jay Tomei has suspended his plans to sell his property. This Plaintiff
has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also
had a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
228. Plaintiff Pamela Tomei, since Defendants installed the wind-turbines, cannot
enjoy outdoor activities on her property because of the flickering and noise. Because of the windturbines,
Plaintiff Pamela Tomei has suspended her plans to sell her property. This Plaintiff has
suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had
a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
229. Plaintiff Lisa Sementilli moved to the Fairfield area in 1998 to be
near her family and enjoy the peace and quiet of country life. However, Plaintiff Lisa
Sementilli's daughter was diagnosed with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. When she
heard that the wind-turbines were coming to the area, she had to pull her children out of school
mid-year due to her daughter's diagnosis. Plaintiff Lisa Sementilli can no longer have her
daughter visit her grandparents in Fairfield because of the wind-turbine noise. This Plaintiff has
suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had
a negative impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
230. Plaintiff Anthony Sementilli moved to the Fairfield area in 1998 to
be near his family and enjoy the peace and quiet of country life. However, Plaintiff Anthony
• • •
Sementilli's daughter was diagnosed with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. When he heard
that the wind-turbines were coming to the area, he had to pull his children out of school mid-year
due to his daughter's diagnosis. Plaintiff Anthony Sementilli can no longer have his daughter
visit her grandparents in Fairfield because of the wind-turbine noise. This Plaintiff has suffered a
significant loss of use and enjoyment of the property. The wind turbines have also had a negative
impact on the value of the property; among other losses.
231. Plaintiff, Sherry Douglas, has experienced a decrease in property value since
Defendants installed the wind-turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and
enjoyment of the property; among other losses.
232. Plaintiff, Mark Wagner, has experienced a decrease in property value since
Defendants installed the wind-turbines. Plaintiff Mark Wagner operates a 141-acre Garden
Center on a property that has been in his family since about 1938. Plaintiff Mark Wagner has
invested approximately $600,000 into his business, which he cannot sell because of the presence
of the wind turbines. This Plaintiff has suffered a significant loss of use and enjoyment of the
property; among other losses.
233. Upon information and belief, in addition to the aforesaid, all Plaintiffs are entitled
to damages related to the diminution of their property values; compensatory damages for the
destruction of their homes and lifestyle; loss of use and enjoyment of their properties; damages
in the form of relocations costs and lost time spent relocating their homes; mental
anguish; destruction of scenic countryside; physical pain and suffering; difficulty sleeping;
nuisance; trespass; interference with electrical functioning of their homes such as satellites,
telephone and televisions; loss of business profits; special damages that include anxiety, stress,
worry and inconvenience; some Plaintiffs may have a need for future medical monitoring and/or
•
•
medical care; and the effects of the lights and noise the wind turbines have on the Plaintiffs'
properties; among other injuries.
234. In addition to the aforesaid, Plaintiffs seek any and all attorney fees and costs
incurred.
235. Upon information and belief, as a result of the conduct of Defendants, the
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer the damages as set forth herein.
236. The amount of the damages sustained herein by Plaintiffs exceed the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants on each of the
causes of action for the damages stated herein, in an amount to be determined which exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together with attorney's fees, court costs and the
disbursements of this action.
Dated: October 22,2012
. DeFrancisco, Esq. (co-counsel) tody Scalfone, Esq. (co-counsel)
A orneys for Plaintiffs
1 1 East Water Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
(315) 4 79-9000
