§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of The Friends of P.S. 163, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent, New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------In the Matter of Daisy Wright, et al., Appellants, v. New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents, Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, Respondent.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co.

    98 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 2,080 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by alleging that the defendant, which contracted to convert its building into a cooperative, rejected bona fide purchase offers from prospective tenants

  2. 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

  3. In re Chinese Staff and Workers' Ass'n

    88 A.D.3d 425 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 35 times

    2011-09-8 In re CHINESE STAFF AND WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners–Appellants,v.Amanda M. BURDEN, as Director of the New York City Department of City Planning, et al., Respondents–Respondents. John C. Gray, South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn (Rachel Hannaford and Jennifer Levy of counsel), and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York (Bethany Y. Li of counsel), for appellants.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella, Leonard Koerner,

  4. In re Application of Fisher v. Giuliani

    280 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 38 times

    January 25, 2001. Respondents-defendants-appellants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J.), entered on or about July 21, 1999, which granted an article 78 petition to the extent of vacating and annulling the adoption of the Theater Subdistrict zoning map change and text amendments, enjoining the transfer of development rights pursuant to the subject resolution, and directing respondent Department of City Planning to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;

  5. Coalition Against Lincoln West, Inc. v. Weinshall

    21 A.D.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 28 times
    In Coalition Against West Inc v Weinshall, 21 AD3d 215 [1 Dept 2005], the developer prepared and submitted a technical memorandum in 2003, evaluating whether a highway exit closure would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the 1992 FEIS for the comprehensive project.

  6. In the Matter of Landmark West v. Burden

    15 A.D.3d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 17 times

    4992 February 24, 2005. Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered April 23, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul the determination of respondent New York City Planning Commission approving the transfer of the building located at 2 Columbus Circle to respondent New York City Economic Development Corporation for subsequent sale to respondent Museum of Arts and Design, unanimously

  7. Bd. of Managers of the Plaza Condo. v.

    131 A.D.3d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    15394 101392/13 08-04-2015 In re Board of Managers of the Plaza Condominium, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The New York City Department of Transportation, et al., Respondents-Respondents. Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Stephen H. Orel and Steven D. Sladkus of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for municipal respondents. Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP, New York (Dianna D. McCarthy of counsel), for Citibank

  8. Hand v. Hosp. for Special Surgery

    107 A.D.3d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    2013-06-27 In re Joel HAND, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. The HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY, et al., Respondents–Respondents. Jack L. Lester, New York, for appellants. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, New York (Richard G. Leland of counsel), for The Hospital for Special Surgery, respondent. TOM Jack L. Lester, New York, for appellants. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, New York (Richard G. Leland of counsel), for The Hospital for Special Surgery, respondent. Michael

  9. Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Dev. Corp.

    94 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 7 times

    2012-04-12 In re DEVELOP DON'T DESTROY (BROOKLYN), INC., et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Respondents–Appellants.In re Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, Inc., et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. Empire State Development Corporation, et al., Respondents–Appellants. Bryan Cave LLP, New York (Philip E. Karmel of counsel), for Empire State Development Corporation, appellant. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Jeffrey L. Braun

  10. Avella v. City of N.Y.

    54 N.E.3d 1163 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    06-02-2016 In the Matter of Senator Tony AVELLA, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents, Queens Development Group, LLC, et al., Appellants. Opinion Reported below, 131 A.D.3d 77, 13 N.Y.S.3d 358. Motion for an order precluding the City of New York et al. from submitting a brief as respondents on the appeal etc. denied.

  11. Section 617.4 - Type I actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.4   Cited 143 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The purpose of the list of Type I actions in this section is to identify, for agencies, project sponsors and the public, those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions. All agencies are subject to this Type I list. (1) This Type I list is not exhaustive of those actions that an agency determines may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and requires the preparation of an EIS. However, the fact that an action or project

  12. Section 51.101 - General policy

    24 C.F.R. § 51.101   Cited 2 times

    (a) It is HUD's general policy to provide minimum national standards applicable to HUD programs to protect citizens against excessive noise in their communities and places of residence. (1)Planning assistance. HUD requires that grantees give adequate consideration to noise exposures and sources of noise as an integral part of the urban environment when HUD assistance is provided for planning purposes, as follows: (i) Particular emphasis shall be placed on the importance of compatible land use planning

  13. Section 51.100 - Purpose and authority

    24 C.F.R. § 51.100

    (a) It is the purpose of this subpart B to: (1) Call attention to the threat of noise pollution; (2) Encourage the control of noise at its source in cooperation with other Federal departments and agencies; (3) Encourage land use patterns for housing and other noise sensitive urban needs that will provide a suitable separation between them and major noise sources; (4) Generally prohibit HUD support for new construction of noise sensitive uses on sites having unacceptable noise exposure; (5) Provide