§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

21 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. Save Pine Bush v. Albany

    70 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 252 times
    In Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany (70 NY2d 193, 200), we held "that a proceeding alleging SEQRA violations in the enactment of legislation must be commenced within four months of the date of enactment of the ordinance."

  3. In re N.Y.C. Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone

    100 N.Y.2d 337 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 109 times
    Invalidating Local Law 38 due to City Council's failure to include lead dust in the “Negative Declaration” of environmental effects mandated by SEQRA

  4. Aldrich v. Pattison

    107 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses

    March 4, 1985 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, W. Denis Donovan, J. Robert M. Lustberg and Joan M. Ferretti for appellants. Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside Wolff ( William M. Bradner, Jr., David L. Snyder and Peter H. Levitt of counsel), for respondents. RUBIN, J. The question on this appeal is whether there has been compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL, art 8) (hereinafter SEQRA) and the applicable regulations

  5. 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

  6. H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

    69 A.D.2d 222 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)   Cited 128 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In H.O.M.E.S. the agency did not require or review any traffic and parking mitigation plans, or traffic studies before issuing a negative declaration for the building of a new covered stadium at Syracuse University, instead only "vaguely recognized their existence and relied upon general assurances that after the problems developed the University and City of Syracuse would adequately mitigate them by some unspecified appropriate action."

  7. Town of Henrietta v. Department of Environmental Conservation

    76 A.D.2d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)   Cited 115 times
    In Matter of Town of Henrietta v Department of Environmental Conservation of State of N.Y. (76 A.D.2d 215, 220) the court wrote: "An EIS is intended to provide detailed information about the effect which the proposed action is likely to have on the environment, to list ways in which any adverse effects of such an action might be minimized, and to suggest alternatives to such an action so as to form the basis for a decision whether or not to undertake or approve such action.

  8. 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,

  9. Matter of Penfield Pan. A. v. Penfield P. B

    253 A.D.2d 342 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 27 times
    Affirming Article 78 judgment in the petitioner's favor on SEQRA matter

  10. Bronx Comm. for Toxic Free Sch. v. N.Y.C. Sch. Constr. Auth.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7051 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 11 times

    No. 171 10-23-2012 In the Matter of Bronx Committee for Toxic Free Schools, et al., Respondents, v. New York City School Construction Authority, et al., Appellants. Janet L. Zaleon, for appellants. Gregory Silbert, for respondents. The Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.; New Partners for Community Revitalization, amici curiae. SMITH Janet L. Zaleon, for appellants. Gregory Silbert, for respondents. The Real Estate Board of New York, Inc.; New Partners for Community Revitalization, amici curiae.

  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

  12. Section 617.11 - Decision-making and findings requirements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.11   Cited 123 times

    (a) Prior to the lead agency's decision on an action that has been the subject of a final EIS, it shall afford agencies and the public a reasonable time period (not less than 10 calendar days) in which to consider the final EIS before issuing its written findings statement. If a project modification or change of circumstance related to the project requires a lead or involved agency to substantively modify its decision, findings may be amended and filed in accordance with section 617.12(b) of this

  13. Section 617.8 - Scoping

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.8   Cited 69 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The primary goals of scoping are to focus the EIS on potentially significant adverse impacts and to eliminate consideration of those impacts that are irrelevant or not significant . Scoping is required for all EISs (except for supplemental EISs), and may be initiated by the lead agency or the project sponsor. (b) The project sponsor must submit a draft scope that contains the items identified in paragraphs (e) (1) through (5) of this section to the lead agency. The lead agency must provide a

  14. Section 745.65 - Lead-based paint hazards

    40 C.F.R. § 745.65   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Paint-lead hazard. A paint-lead hazard is any of the following: (1) Any lead-based paint on a friction surface that is subject to abrasion and where the lead dust levels on the nearest horizontal surface underneath the friction surface (e.g., the window sill, or floor) are equal to or greater than the dust-lead hazard levels identified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Any damaged or otherwise deteriorated lead-based paint on an impact surface that is caused by impact from a related building

  15. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review