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

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

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

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

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
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2004

Askew v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, acting as a union chairman, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Christopher O. Ward. The petitioner challenged the reduction of engineers and their replacement with senior sewage treatment workers, alleging violations of the State and New York City Environmental Quality Review Acts (SEQRA/CEQR) for lack of an environmental impact statement, and Civil Service Law § 61 (2) for requiring out-of-title work. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner lacked standing for the environmental claim and that both causes of action were time-barred. On appeal, the order and judgment were affirmed, with the appellate court concurring that the petitioner lacked standing for both the SEQRA/CEQR and Civil Service Law claims, citing different reasons for the latter.

CPLR Article 78StandingSEQRA/CEQREnvironmental Impact StatementCivil Service LawOut-of-title workTime-barred claimsUnion representationPublic employmentAdministrative review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Ass'n v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner

This case involved an appeal challenging a negative declaration issued under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by the respondent, which approved a residential subdivision by intervenor Petone, Inc., in the Town of Gardiner, Ulster County. Petitioners argued that the project, a Type I action in an environmentally sensitive area, required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) despite proposed mitigating measures. The court found that the procedure to issue the negative declaration, based on concessions from the developer, bypassed the necessary procedural safeguards of SEQRA, including public review and consideration of alternatives. The judgment reversed the lower court's dismissal, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, mandating an EIS.

SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewNegative DeclarationType I ActionEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Mitigating MeasuresSubdivision ApprovalLand UseAppellate ReviewJudicial Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munash v. Town Board of the Town of East Hampton

The Town of East Hampton planned to acquire land in a critical environmental area for affordable housing. The Town Board issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), concluding no significant environmental impact. Petitioners, including property owners, challenged this decision, seeking judicial review and the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The court found that the Town Board failed to adequately consider potential environmental impacts, particularly concerning the Pine Barrens ecosystem and groundwater quality. Consequently, the court granted the petition, rejected the negative declaration, and remitted the matter to the Town Board to prepare a full EIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementGroundwater ProtectionPine BarrensAffordable HousingLand UseCondemnationJudicial Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,209 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