CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1989

Orange Environment Inc. v. Jorling

The petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to renew a landfill permit for Al Turi Landfill, Inc. The permit extension allowed expanded use and acceptance of incinerator ash without requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The petitioner contended that DEC failed to conduct a thorough environmental review. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that DEC had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for not requiring an SEIS. The appellate court also found that DEC was not obligated to consider cumulative impacts in the absence of a comprehensive development plan and that the permit renewal was consistent with the department's aquifer protection policy.

Environmental LawLandfill PermitSEISNegative DeclarationAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Environmental Impact AssessmentGroundwater ContaminationAppellate ReviewPermit Renewal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel

The County of Orange challenged environmental determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding the construction of a public water supply facility and pipeline. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, annulled the determinations, and remitted the matter for a supplemental environmental impact statement. The appellate court modified the judgment, directing the preparation of an amended final environmental impact statement instead of a supplemental one, specifically requiring analysis of wetlands, sewage, wastewater discharge, a phase 1-B archaeological study, and growth-inducing effects. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the Village's motion to renew opposition to the petition, concluding that while deficiencies existed in the initial environmental review, the lead agency was not required to consider additional alternatives beyond those already identified. The case clarifies that an amended FEIS is appropriate for initial deficiencies, not an SEIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRA ComplianceCPLR Article 78Wetlands ImpactWastewater DischargeArchaeological StudyGrowth-Inducing EffectsEnvironmental Impact StatementAmended FEISJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2001

Silvercup Studios, Inc. v. Power Authority

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed determinations by the Power Authority of the State of New York (NYPA) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) concerning a natural gas-powered turbine generator project in Queens. NYPA issued a Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and DEC issued air pollution control permits. The Supreme Court initially annulled both determinations, enjoining construction until NYPA prepared a full environmental impact statement (EIS). On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of DEC's air permits was reversed, confirming their validity. The injunction against NYPA was stayed until January 31, 2002, to allow time for SEQRA compliance. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's annulment of NYPA's negative declaration, finding NYPA should have issued a positive declaration and prepared an EIS due to potential significant environmental impacts.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationAir Pollution PermitsArticle 78 ProceedingTurbine GeneratorEnvironmental Impact StatementJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate Division
References
18
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. 03-15-00814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order concerning a plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant A. I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.) challenged a 2013 compliance history rating assigned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) and its Executive Director, Richard Hyde, which classified A.I. as an 'unsatisfactory performer'. A.I. argued that an agreed final judgment (AFJ) used by the Commission should not have been considered due to its specific terms and that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious. A.I. also sought declaratory relief under various acts and alleged a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals determined that A.I.'s suit for judicial review was moot because the 2013 rating had been superseded. The court further held that A.I.'s claims for declaratory relief lacked a justiciable controversy and its breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the dismissal of the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Compliance HistoryEnvironmental RegulationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMootness DoctrineSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractTexas Water CodeTexas Health and Safety Code
References
36
Case No. 61 AD3d 88
Regular Panel Decision

Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioner, Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC, challenged the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to deny its properties' inclusion in the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. DEC's denial was based on its determination that the properties did not meet the statutory definition of a brownfield site, arguing that contamination levels were minimal and did not complicate redevelopment, with issues primarily stemming from solid waste. Lighthouse presented substantial evidence of contamination, including hazardous wastes exceeding cleanup standards, which had demonstrably hindered redevelopment efforts by impacting financing and regulatory approvals. The Supreme Court initially sided with Lighthouse, but the Appellate Division reversed, deferring to DEC's expertise. The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that DEC's interpretation of "brownfield site" was arbitrarily narrow and contrary to the broad legislative intent of the BCP, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment to grant Lighthouse's application.

Brownfield Cleanup ProgramEnvironmental Conservation LawContaminationReal Property RedevelopmentHazardous WasteSolid Waste LandfillSoil Cleanup ObjectivesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 950 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational