§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Deborah Glick, et al., Appellants,v.Rose Harvey,, et al., Respondents, New York University, Third-Party Respondent.

Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

    67 N.Y.2d 400 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 657 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that failure to raise challenges to FEIS under state environmental law during proceedings could not be overlooked when determining whether failure to discuss issue in FEIS was reasonable

  2. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 100 v. City of New York Department of Parks & Recreation

    311 F.3d 534 (2d Cir. 2002)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Lincoln Center Plaza had not been dedicated as a public park

  3. C/S 12th Avenue LLC v. City of New York

    32 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 47 times

    7926, 7927 [M-6216], 7928 [M-6217], 7929 [M-6228], 7930 [M-6230], M-6609, M-6829, M-6830, M-6836, M-6869. May 25, 2006. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS pursuant to EDPL 207 to review the determination and findings of respondents City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority approving the acquisition of certain real property and/or easements thereto and zoning thereof for the project known as the No. 7 Subway Extension — Hudson Yards Rezoning and Redevelopment Program. Blank Rome LLP, New York

  4. Pless v. Town of Royalton

    81 N.Y.2d 1047 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 58 times

    Argued May 4, 1993 Decided June 10, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Jacqueline M. Koshian, J. Magner, Love Morris, P.C., Buffalo (William J. Love, Jr., and Karen Kaczmarski of counsel), for appellants. David E. Seaman, Lockport, for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The issue before us is whether a municipality is estopped from certifying a road as abandoned due to nonuse for

  5. Powell v. City of New York

    85 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 21 times

    No. 4845. June 7, 2011. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 27, 2010, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that neither Asphalt Green nor Bobby Wagner Walk is subject to the public trust doctrine, and therefore, the City of New York is not required to obtain legislative approval before commencing demolition, construction or operation of an access

  6. In re Angiolillo v. Town of Greenburgh

    290 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that parklike land was for parkway use, and not public park, and thus no approval was needed

  7. Baker v. Vill. of Elmsford

    70 A.D.3d 181 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 14 times

    No. 2007-09534. December 8, 2009. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Robert A. Neary, J.), entered September 14, 2007 in a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for a declaratory judgment. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition to review two resolutions of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Elmsford, which had discontinued portions of two streets in the village, and dismissed the proceeding. Bleakley Platt Schmidt, LLP, White

  8. New York City Council v. City of New York

    4 A.D.3d 85 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 20 times

    2187. Decided January 15, 2004. Appeals from order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 30, 2002, which granted petitioners' first and second causes of action to the extent of directing that Uniform Land Use Review Procedure review proceed and enjoining any action by respondents permitting or authorizing demolition of the elevated railway known as the Highline. New York City Council v. City of New York, 2002 NY Slip Op 40062 (U), reversed

  9. Jackson v. Bd. of Com'rs County of Monroe

    916 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a "road remains public even if it is rarely used"

  10. Riverview Partners, LP v. City of Peekskill

    273 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 16 times

    Submitted April 17, 2000. July 26, 2000. In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that certain property is not a public park, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated February 3, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and declared that the subject property was not a public park. Florence Smith, Peekskill, N.Y. (Russell A. Smith of counsel),

  11. Section 617.9 - Preparation and content of environmental impact statements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.9   Cited 142 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) Environmental impact statement procedures. (1) The project sponsor or the lead agency, at the project sponsor's option, will prepare the draft EIS. If the project sponsor does not exercise the option to prepare the draft EIS, the lead agency will prepare it, cause it to be prepared or terminate its review of the action. A fee may be charged by the lead agency for preparation or review of an EIS pursuant to section 617.13 of this Part. (2) The lead agency will use the final written scope and the