§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of the Association for a Better Long Island, Inc., et al., Petitioners, Town of Riverhead et al., Appellants,v.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, et al., Respondents.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,719 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

    549 U.S. 497 (2007)   Cited 1,152 times   97 Legal Analyses
    Holding that denials of petitions for rulemaking are judicially reviewable

  3. Citizens for Better Forestry v. Department of Agriculture

    341 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 251 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs "were deprived of the opportunity to comment on the [agency's NEPA documents] at all points in the rulemaking process," and that "[t]his deprivation violated their rights under the regulations implementing NEPA"

  4. Klostermann v. Cuomo

    61 N.Y.2d 525 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 408 times
    In Klostermann, the public agencies involved were in repeated noncompliance with the command of Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15 (g), which required preparation of a written service plan, with prescribed contents, for every person discharged from state psychiatric hospitals.

  5. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Fla. v. Veneman

    289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 201 times
    Holding that the notice-and-comment requirement "would be eviscerated" if agency could bypass it without good cause simply because plaintiffs "cannot identify any additional arguments they would have made in a notice-and-comment procedure that they did not make" informally

  6. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

    76 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 138 times
    In Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency (76 N.Y.2d 428, 433), the Court of Appeals held that "[t]o qualify for standing to raise a SEQRA challenge, a party must demonstrate that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature".

  7. Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhaven

    74 N.Y.2d 524 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 107 times
    In Har, the Court of Appeals held that a property owner whose land was targeted for rezoning had a "legally cognizable interest in being assured that the town satisfied SEQRA" and had standing to bring a SEQRA challenge, even absent a showing of specific environmental harm (id. at 529, 549 N.Y.S.2d 638, 548 N.E.2d 1289).

  8. Matter of WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Lloyd

    79 N.Y.2d 373 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 98 times

    Argued February 11, 1992 Decided April 3, 1992 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Vincent G. Bradley, J. Thomas P. Halley for appellant. David D. Hagstrom for respondent. Drayton Grant for Scenic Hudson, Inc., amicus curiae. ALEXANDER, J. The respondent Planning Board of the Town of Lloyd denied petitioner WEOK Broadcasting Corporation's application for site plan approval to construct a radio transmitter facility. After a review of the application

  9. New York State Superfund Coal., Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8996 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 39 times

    2011-12-15 In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE SUPERFUND COALITION, INC., Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION et al., Respondents. Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Rochester (Thomas F. Walsh, Thomas J. Warth and Danielle E. Mettler of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers, Barbara D. Underwood and Denise A. Hartman of counsel), for respondents. JONES Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Rochester (Thomas F. Walsh, Thomas J. Warth and Danielle

  10. Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

    81 A.D.3d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 1534, 1535. November 4, 2010. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled action, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 17, 2009. The judgment dismissed the complaint in an action to declare Tax Law § 1101 (b) (8) (vi) un-constitutional. APPEAL, in the second above-entitled action, from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 15, 2009. The order, among other things, directed entry of a judgment dismissing