No. 48 05-05-2015 In the Matter of NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Respondent. Lawrence M. Levine and Rebecca J. Hammer, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York City, and Super Law Group, LLC, New York City (Reed W. Super of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Barbara D. Underwood, Steven C. Wu and Bethany A. Davis Noll of counsel), for respondent. Daniel

No. 63. Argued March 22, 2010. decided April 29, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered March 10, 2009, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of the Supreme Court, entered in New York County). The Appellate Division judgment, insofar as appealed from, modified, on the law, a determination of respondent

07-01-2015 Philip CAPRIO et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Judith N. Vale, Barbara D. Underwood and Cecelia C. Chang of counsel), for appellants. Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York City (John G. Nicolich and Roger Cukras of counsel), and Pitta & Giblin LLP, New York City (Vincent F. Pitta of counsel), for respondents. STEIN, J. Eric T. Schneiderman

97809. November 10, 2005. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered September 1, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted the cross motion of respondents Department of Environmental Conservation and Commissioner of Environmental Conservation for summary judgment dismissing the second and third causes of action of the petition/complaint, and (2) from an order of said court

No. 71-1658. Argued June 20, 1972. Decided April 25, 1973. As amended May 18, 1973. Anna R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., Solomon H. Friend, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants. James R. Thompson, U.S. Atty., William T. Huyck, James C. Murray, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., and Cheryl S. Karner, Atty., Consumer Division Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Before FAIRCHILD, CUMMINGS, and STEVENS

(a) The term "federal license or permit" means any authorization that an applicant is required by law to obtain in order to conduct activities affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone and that any Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant. The term "federal license or permit" does not include OCS plans, and federal license or permit activities described in detail in OCS plans, which are subject to subpart E of this part, or leases issued pursuant to lease

(a)Act. The term "Act" means the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464 ) . (b)Any coastal use or resource. The phrase "any coastal use or resource" means any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone. Land and water uses, or coastal uses, are defined in sections 304(10) and (18) of the act, respectively, and include, but are not limited to, public access, recreation, fishing, historic or cultural preservation, development, hazards management, marinas

(a) The State agency's six-month review period (see§ 930.62(a) ) of an applicant's consistency certification begins on the date the State agency receives the consistency certification required by § 930.57 and all the necessary data and information required by § 930.58(a) . (1) If an applicant fails to submit a consistency certification, the State agency shall notify the applicant and the Federal agency, within 30 days of receipt of the incomplete submission, that a consistency certification satisfying

Counsel shall timely inform the clerk's office and each other party by letter of all developments affecting appeals, section 500.27 certified questions, motions and criminal leave applications pending in this court, including contemplated and actual settlements, circumstances or facts that could render the matter moot and pertinent developments in applicable case law, statutes and regulations. For appeals, counsel shall also timely inform the clerk's office and each other party by letter of any changes

(a) No State agency involved in an action shall carry out, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of article 42 of the Executive Law. (b) In accordance with Executive Law, article 42, actions directly undertaken by State agencies within the coastal area, including grants, loans or other funding assistance, land use and development, planning and land transactions, shall be consistent with the applicable coastal policies set forth in section 600.5 or 600.6 of this Part

(a) The management program must provide for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and managing the coastal zone, including the siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the State must have considered any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program. (b) The primary purpose of this requirement is to assure adequate consideration by States of the national interest involved

(a) A State must include in its management program submission, as part of the body of the submission an appendix or an attachment, the procedures it will use to implement the Federal consistency requirements of subsections 307 (c) and (d) of the Act. At a minimum, the following must be included: (1) An indication of whether the state agency designated pursuant to subsection 306(d)(6) of the Act or a single other agency will handle consistency review (see 15 CFR 930.18 ) ; (2) A list of Federal license

The management program must contain a method of assuring that local land use and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land uses and water uses of regional benefit. To this end, the management program must: (a) Identify what constitutes uses of regional benefit; and (b) Identify and utilize any one or a combination of methods, consistent with the control techniques employed by the State, to assure local land and water use regulations do not unreasonably

The management program must be developed and adopted with the opportunity of full participation by state agencies, local governments, regional commissions and organizations, port authorities, and other interested public and private parties. To meet this requirement, a State must: (a) Develop and make available general information regarding the program design, its content and its status throughout program development; (b) Provide a listing, as comprehensive as possible, of all governmental agencies

(a) To obtain Secretarial review of a State agency objection, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal with the Secretary within 30 days of receipt of a State agency objection. (b) The appellant's notice of appeal shall include a statement explaining the appellant's basis for appeal of the State agency's objection under §§ 930.121 and/or 930.122 of this title, including any procedural arguments pursuant to § 930.129(b) . Bases for appeal (including procedural arguments) not identified in the appellant's