19 Cited authorities

Society of Plastics v. Suffolk
77 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 959 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 (1991), this Court examined the law of standing, and set forth a framework for deciding whether parties have standing to challenge governmental action in land use matters generally, and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8 [SEQRA]), specifically.
Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello
2 N.Y.3d 207 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 313 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that standing may not be based on "hypothesized harm," and that "[p]laintiff's speculation about the future course the Guidelines might take [i.e., the future injury their application might cause to plaintiff] cannot supply the missing ingredient of in-fact injury."
Sun-Brite v. Bd. of Zoning
69 N.Y.2d 406 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 374 times
Explaining that " leaseholder may ... have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as the owner."
Boryszewski v. Brydges
37 N.Y.2d 361 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 187 times
Rejecting state constitutional challenges to public retirement plan based onholding that retirement benefits are a component of present compensation
Roberts v. Health Hosps
87 A.D.3d 311 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 64 times
In Health & Hosps., petitioners brought an Article 78 proceedings to challenge the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's ("HHC") decision to reduce its maintenance staff on the ground that it would create an unsafe condition for patients and staff members who remained employed.
QBE Insurance v. Jinx-Proof Inc.
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1100 (N.Y. 2014) Cited 17 times
Holding that letters effectively disclaimed coverage even though they "contained some contradictory and confusing language" and "contained 'reservation of rights' language," because they "were sufficient to apprise" the insured of the ground for excluding coverage
Mendoza v. Plaza Homes
55 A.D.3d 692 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 19 times
No. 2007-05207. October 14, 2008. In an action to recover damages for injury to property and for a judgment declaring that a house erected upon premises owned by the defendants Plaza Homes, LLC, and Alfred Basal at 175-12 90th Avenue in Jamaica encroaches upon the premises owned by the plaintiffs at 90-01 175th Street in Jamaica, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J), entered April 30, 2007, as denied their
In re Brunswick Smart Growth, Inc.
73 A.D.3d 1267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 17 times
No. 508328. May 6, 2010. Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.), entered July 30, 2009 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the amended petition. Peter Henner, Clarksville, for appellants. Tuczinski, Cavalier, Burstein Collura, P.C., Albany (Andrew W. Gilchrist of counsel), for respondent. Stephen A. Downs, Selkirk, for Save the Pine Bush, Inc., amicus curiae. Before: Peters, J.P., Malone Jr.
Gramercy Company v. Benenson
223 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) Cited 29 times
January 30, 1996 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.). The IAS Court properly found that a question of fact exists as to whether defendant trustees of the Park exercised diligence and prudence in the care of the Park, the trust res (see, Matter of Hahn, 62 N.Y.2d 821, 824), where the reports of their experts recommending that certain trees be removed were vague and conflicting. Although defendants assert that all the trees they cut down posed a hazardous condition
Hoston v. New York State Department of Health
203 A.D.2d 826 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) Cited 26 times
In Matter of Hoston v New York State Department of Health (203 AD2d 826, supra), the petitioners made what the court described as vague and undocumented claims regarding the alleged increased health care costs that was the gravamen of that action.

In the Matter of Alicia Echevarria, Appellant,v.Matthew M. Wambua,, et al., Respondents.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that standing may not be based on "hypothesized harm," and that "[p]laintiff's speculation about the future course the Guidelines might take [i.e., the future injury their application might cause to plaintiff] cannot supply the missing ingredient of in-fact injury."

Explaining that " leaseholder may ... have the same standing to challenge municipal zoning action as the owner."

Rejecting state constitutional challenges to public retirement plan based onholding that retirement benefits are a component of present compensation

In Health & Hosps., petitioners brought an Article 78 proceedings to challenge the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation's ("HHC") decision to reduce its maintenance staff on the ground that it would create an unsafe condition for patients and staff members who remained employed.

Holding that letters effectively disclaimed coverage even though they "contained some contradictory and confusing language" and "contained 'reservation of rights' language," because they "were sufficient to apprise" the insured of the ground for excluding coverage

In Matter of Hoston v New York State Department of Health (203 AD2d 826, supra), the petitioners made what the court described as vague and undocumented claims regarding the alleged increased health care costs that was the gravamen of that action.