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

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

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
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
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

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05778 [152 AD3d 1016]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

This case involves an appeal by Riverkeeper, Inc. challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to grant SPDES and Title V permits to Danskammer Energy, LLC for a natural gas electric generating station. Riverkeeper sought annulment of the permits and a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing for a public adjudicatory hearing and a new source review. The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, and the Appellate Division affirmed this judgment. The appellate court found DEC's determinations regarding the lack of need for a public hearing, compliance with thermal discharge regulations through a 'mixing zone' policy, and the non-permanent nature of the station's shutdown for new source review purposes to be rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

Environmental LawPermit RenewalSPDES PermitTitle V PermitState Environmental Quality Review ActPublic HearingNew Source ReviewWater Quality StandardsThermal DischargeClean Air Act
References
37
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. 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. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 03-14-00667-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a unilateral administrative order under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to ExxonMobil and Shell Oil Company, compelling them to pay millions for the remediation of the Voda Site without a prior adjudicatory hearing. ExxonMobil and Shell argue for de novo judicial review, challenging the TCEQ's interpretation that review is limited to the administrative record under a pure substantial evidence rule. They assert the City of Waco Supreme Court decision, which concerns permitting and standing for third parties, is inapplicable to this Superfund enforcement action. The appellees contend that the administrative order was issued under both SWDA sections 361.188 and 361.272, which grants them the right to de novo review by a preponderance of the evidence at the district court.

Environmental LawSuperfund ProgramSolid Waste Disposal ActAdministrative OrderJudicial ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceDe Novo ReviewTravis County District CourtTexas Court of AppealsWater Quality
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 6,065 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