Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 12-01-2021

Case Style:

United States of America v. Kristofer Landell and Stephanie Laskin

Case Number: 1:21-cr-00154-TJM

Judge: Thomas J. McAvoy

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Onondoga County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:


Best Syracuse Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


Description: Syracuse, New York criminal defense attorneys represented defendants charged with conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act regulations that control the safe removal, handling and disposal of asbestos.

Kristofer Landell and Stephanie Laskin were indicted for engaging in a year-long conspiracy to violate federal and New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) regulations intended to prevent human exposure to asbestos. More specifically, between 2015 and 2016, Landell and Laskin both permitted, and in some cases directed, abatement workers to remove asbestos from the TechCity Property illegally by stripping regulated asbestos containing materials without properly containing the work area and removing the asbestos dry, thus allowing airborne fibers to escape into the surrounding environment. In an effort to conceal those crimes, Landell, acting in his capacity as an air- and project-monitor, concealed these violations by fabricating and falsifying paperwork required by EPA and the State of New York. The conspirators also engaged in other efforts to deceive authorities, such as by failing to conduct air-monitoring and falsifying at least one NYSDOL-required “final air clearance.” Despite the defendants’ efforts to conceal their crimes, NYSDOL inspectors found numerous violations during the course of the year-long project and issued notices of violation. Conditions at the TechCity Property deteriorated until NYSDOL shut down operations in August 2016 and directed the defendants and their companies to cease all work. Notwithstanding this NYSDOL order, the defendants continued operations for a short time, prompting a criminal investigation.

In his plea agreement, Osterhoudt, the Vice President of Property Management for TechCity, admitted that as a result of the defendants’ illegal asbestos removal, there was likely a release of asbestos contamination into the environment that placed others at an increased risk of death or serious bodily injury. Asbestos has been determined to cause lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma, an invariably fatal disease. Given that EPA has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, the United States has endeavored to identify all those persons in close proximity to the illegal asbestos operations during the TechCity project and is seeking restitution on behalf of all those potentially exposed to airborne asbestos contamination during the relevant time period. That process is ongoing.

Special agents of the EPA investigated the case with the assistance of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and information provided by the NYSDOL Asbestos Control Bureau and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The case was prosecuted by Todd W. Gleason and Gary N. Donner of the Environmental Crimes Section.

18:371.F - CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE CLEAN AIR ACT and DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
(1)

Outcome: Landell:

Defendant is sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment on Count 1 of the Information; Defendant placed on supervised release for a term of 3 years; Defendant recommended substance abuse treatment while incarcerated; Defendant to comply with standard and special conditions as stated; Defendant is directed to pay restitution as stated; Defendant is directed to pay $100.00 special assessment.

Laskin:

Defendant is sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment on Count 1 of the Information; Defendant placed on supervised release for a term of 3 years; Defendant recommended substance abuse treatment while incarcerated; Defendant to comply with standard and special conditions as stated; Defendant is directed to pay restitution as stated; Defendant is directed to pay $100.00 special assessment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: