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
Feb 26, 1990

Manhattan Valley Neighbors for Permanent Housing For Homeless v. Koch

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition brought by petitioners challenging a Board of Estimate decision. Petitioners sought to annul the Board's approval of a plan to rehabilitate city-owned buildings in Manhattan for transitional housing for approximately 71 homeless families, proposing instead permanent housing. They contended the project required an environmental impact statement (EIS) due to the transitional nature of the residency. The court found that the city properly classified the project as a Type II action, exempt from EIS requirements under SEQRA and CEQR, as it involved replacement in kind and not new construction. The court concluded that the Board of Estimate did not act illegally or arbitrarily in exempting the project from an EIS.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawArticle 78 PetitionSEQRACEQRTransitional HousingHomelessnessUrban DevelopmentType II ActionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1999

Fisher v. Giuliani

The case challenges recent zoning amendments in the Manhattan Theater District, specifically regarding the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Petitioners argued the City's Department of City Planning (DCP) failed to adequately assess environmental impacts before implementing changes to the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). The court found that while no EIS was needed for as-of-right development transfers and design controls, the City erred by not analyzing the potential impact of amendments allowing special permits and discretionary authorizations. Consequently, the provisions related to discretionary grants of Floor-to-Area ratio (FAR) were annulled and severed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Zoning AmendmentsEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Theater District ZoningDevelopment Rights TransferManhattan Zoning ResolutionSpecial PermitsDiscretionary AuthorizationsEnvironmental Assessment Statement (EAS)
References
14
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West Branch Conservation Ass'n v. Planning Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding sought to review a negative declaration and preliminary subdivision approval by the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The Supreme Court's initial dismissal was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the Planning Board's determination irrational and in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Board had issued a negative declaration despite acknowledging potential significant environmental impacts from the proposed residential development on High Tor Mountain. The court concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required, annulling the Board's determination and remitting the matter for EIS preparation. The court also clarified standing, affirming Marcus Ratliff's standing while noting the West Branch Conservation Association, Inc. lacked it.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementSubdivision ApprovalLand Use PlanningPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingStanding
References
11
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

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
Oct 09, 1987

Stryckers Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court order which initially directed the City of New York and its agencies, the Departments of City Planning and Environmental Protection, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a west side urban renewal project. The Appellate Division unanimously modified the lower court's order, remanding the matter back to the two city agencies. The remand requires the agencies to consider the consequential secondary displacement of low-income residents and businesses, commonly referred to as "gentrification," as an environmental factor. This consideration is in line with the precedent set by *Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York*. Furthermore, the agencies are tasked with providing a "reasoned elaboration" for the basis of their ultimate determination regarding the project's environmental impact. While parts of the original order were affirmed, the court found it was an error for the IAS court to order the preparation of an EIS in the absence of an administrative determination that the project would have a significant environmental impact.

environmental impacturban renewalgentrificationNew York Cityappellate reviewadministrative lawenvironmental impact statementplanningdisplacementreasoned elaboration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olejniczak v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.

Gerald P. Olejniczak and his wife, Sandra Olejniczak, sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in federal court, based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking to recover for injuries Olejniczak allegedly sustained from a slip and fall at DuPont's Tonawanda plant in January 1994. The non-jury trial focused on Olejniczak's credibility, weather conditions, and DuPont's duty of care. The District Court found Olejniczak's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and prior false statements under oath. The court concluded that DuPont did not breach its duty, citing the 'storm in progress' doctrine and its reasonable snow removal practices, particularly given the severe weather. Furthermore, Olejniczak failed to prove proximate causation or that DuPont had sufficient notice of a dangerous condition. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, dismissing both Olejniczak's negligence claim and Sandra Olejniczak's derivative loss of consortium claim.

NegligenceSlip and FallPremises LiabilityDuty of CareStorm in Progress DoctrineCredibility AssessmentProximate CausationConstructive NoticePersonal InjuryDiversity Jurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbs v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

This case involves former employees of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Niagara Falls, New York, who developed bladder cancer due to alleged exposure to orthotoluidine and aniline manufactured by the defendants. Plaintiffs, including Harry Gibbs, Robert Bailey, Anthony D’Orazio, and William Mooney, seek to certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) for a court-administered medical monitoring fund. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting mootness, lack of a recognized cause of action for medical monitoring under New York law, and insufficient amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding a factual dispute regarding mootness, concluding that a cause of action for medical monitoring is viable in New York, and determining that the value of the injunctive relief sought met the jurisdictional amount. While the court found a medical monitoring fund appropriate for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, it deferred the final decision on class certification pending further briefing and potential discovery on the Rule 23(a) threshold requirements.

Bladder CancerToxic TortChemical ExposureMedical MonitoringClass Action LawsuitRule 23(b)(2)Negligence ClaimsProduct LiabilityDiversity JurisdictionNew York Tort Law
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 34 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