A lawsuit that has thus far crawled along at a snail’s pace will continue – after further delay.

Richard Alexander et. al v. EDP Renewables North America LLC et al. was originally filed Sept. 24, 2019, by dozens of north county residents over the Arkwright Summit Wind Farm, which consists of 47 wind turbines erected in 2018. Residents are asking the court for unspecified damages related to loss of property values, compensatory damages for destruction of homes and lifestyle, loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, damages for relocation costs and time spent relocating, mental anguish, destruction of scenic countryside, physical pain and suffering, difficulty sleeping, nuisance, trespass, interference with electronics in their homes such as satellites, telephones and televisions, loss of business profits, special damages for stress, anxiety, worry and inconvenience, and the effects lights and noise from the turbines have on their properties.

Over the past four years attorneys for both the residents and the defendants — EDP Renewables North America LLC and several other companies, have haggled over documents that should be given from one side to the other, depositions and interrogations and other procedural matters.

On Dec. 24, state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon approved a motion by the plaintiff’s lawyer for a Leave to Amend motion. Approving the motion means the residents can add more plaintiffs to the lawsuit while also changing some aspects of the lawsuit.

“In opposition to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Seeking Leave To Amend the Complaint, the defendants have failed to establish as a matter of law that will suffer any real prejudice whatsoever as a result of this proposed amendment,” attorney Ann Marie Murzin of Westfall Law PLLC in Syracuse wrote to the court in April. “Furthermore, the scales of justice undeniably tip in favor of allowing the assertion of the claims put forth by these proposed plaintiffs. This assertion becomes even more imperative when juxtaposed with the so-called ‘burden’ purportedly placed on these corporate defendants. The immense disparity in resources between these corporate behemoths and the individual plaintiffs is undeniable.”

The statute of limitations had run out on new plaintiff claims to be added to the lawsuit. James Macri, the attorney representing White Construction LLC, one of the defendants in the case, argued that none of the new plaintiffs asserted a factual claim against the construction company even though they assert causes of action against White Construction as well as all of the other defendants in the case. Macri also argued the Leave to Amend motion should be denied because the seven new plaintiffs are distinct from those who joined the case from the outset.

“The new plaintiffs are distinct individuals from those in the proper pleadings, they allege their own factual allegations, they reside on different properties and they seek their own damages,” Macri argued. “White Construction was not on notice of the new plaintiffs’ claims until the motion to amend and allowing adding them now would expand White Construction’s potential liability. As a result, addition of the new plaintiffs would expand the relation back doctrine way beyond its meaning and purpose by reviving time-barred claims asserted by strangers to the original pleadings.”