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

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
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 13, 2000

Spitzer v. Farrell

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) implemented an interim plan to transport Manhattan's solid waste to New Jersey, necessitating an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). DOS issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant environmental impact. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that DOS failed to adequately consider the impact of PM2.5 emissions, relying instead on outdated PM10 standards. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. This court reversed that decision, finding that DOS's failure to take a "hard look" at potential PM2.5 impacts was an error of law under SEQRA. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and DOS was directed to conduct a new environmental assessment addressing all relevant concerns, including PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationAir QualityPM2.5 EmissionsPM10 StandardsDiesel EmissionsWaste ManagementJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF MERSON v. McNally

The Court of Appeals addresses whether a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) can be issued for a Type I action, even when the project has been modified to accommodate environmental concerns. Reviewing two related cases, Matter of Merson v McNally and Matter of Philipstown Indus. Park v Town Bd., the Court examines a mining project by Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) in the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County. The Planning Board, acting as the lead agency, issued a negative declaration after PIP revised its plans in response to public and agency input regarding noise, traffic, and groundwater. The Appellate Division had annulled this declaration, viewing the modifications as impermissible 'conditioned negative declarations.' The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such project adjustments, made through an open and deliberative process to mitigate potential adverse effects, are a legitimate part of SEQRA review and do not invalidate a negative declaration. The cases are remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of unaddressed issues, including preemption.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationMined Land Reclamation LawType I ActionProject ModificationEnvironmental Impact StatementLead AgencyZoning LawAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wertheim v. Albertson Water District

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed an appellate court's reversal of a Supreme Court order concerning a negative declaration for an air-stripping project under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had initially annulled the appellants' negative declaration. The appellate court, however, reversed, finding the petition time-barred due to being commenced over 11 months after the March 31, 1993, negative declaration. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the appellants' reasonable exercise of discretion in issuing the negative declaration, citing thorough environmental reviews. It was concluded that the project did not meet Type 1 classification thresholds and the agency's interpretation of regulations was rational.

CPLR Article 78SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewNegative DeclarationAir Stripping ProjectStatute of LimitationsTime-BarredAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardWater Quality
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Serdarevic v. Town of Goshen

This case concerns a proceeding under EDPL 207 and CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the Town Board of the Town of Goshen. The Town Board had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for a proposed roadway drainage project involving land condemnation. The petitioners challenged this declaration, arguing the Town failed to adequately assess environmental impacts. The court found that the Town did not take a "hard look" at the potential negative impacts on the petitioners' property and the Town reservoir, nor did it provide reasoned elaboration for its determination. Consequently, the court annulled the Town's negative declaration and remitted the matter to the Town Board for the preparation and circulation of a draft environmental impact statement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCondemnationEminent DomainRoadway Drainage ProjectPublic HearingAnnulmentRemittalEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1988

Jackson v. City of New Rochelle

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a "negative declaration" by the City Council of New Rochelle. The City proposed to purchase and demolish three two-family houses to construct a 58-car parking lot, issuing a negative declaration that no environmental impact statement was needed. Petitioners, including tenants and "homeless" individuals, challenged this, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court, Westchester County, dismissed the petition. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding that two "homeless" petitioners lacked standing and that the City Council's determination regarding SEQRA compliance was supported by evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, despite the negative declaration being prepared after the property contract.

SEQRAEnvironmental Impact StatementNegative DeclarationStandingCPLR Article 78ZoningUrban DevelopmentParking LotHousing DemolitionJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1998

Wilkinson v. Planning Board of the Town of Thompson

The petitioners challenged the Town of Thompson's Planning Board and Town Board's environmental determination and approvals for a Wal-Mart 'super-center' project, which included a negative declaration of environmental impact, site plan approval, rezoning, and proposed abandonment of a road. The Supreme Court dismissed their petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Planning Board's negative declaration was not arbitrary or capricious, as it conducted a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration.' The court also ruled that the mitigating measures incorporated by Wal-Mart during the review process did not constitute an impermissible conditioned negative declaration, as they were voluntary adjustments made to address identified concerns. Finally, the court agreed that the abandonment of Lanahans Road was justified under Highway Law § 212-a.

Environmental ReviewSite Plan ApprovalSubdivision ApprovalNegative DeclarationConditioned Negative DeclarationSEQRALand UseZoningRoad AbandonmentWal-Mart
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,660 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