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

Golden Triangle Associates v. Town Board of Amherst

Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the respondent Town's determination to rezone an adjacent parcel. The Town, acting as the lead agency under SEQRA, issued a 'negative declaration,' asserting that the rezoning would not have significant environmental impacts. While the court affirmed petitioners' standing, it ultimately found their arguments regarding the Town Board's alleged violations of SEQRA's procedural and substantive requirements to be without merit. The record indicated that the Town Board conducted a thorough review of environmental concerns and provided a reasoned explanation for its negative declaration. A procedural error concerning the timing of the rezoning approval was deemed cured by a subsequent superseding resolution, with site-specific impacts to be addressed during future site plan review.

CPLR Article 78SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewNegative DeclarationRezoningLand UseStandingProcedural RequirementsSubstantive RequirementsTown Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neville v. Koch

This case addresses a challenge to New York City's rezoning of a block on West 42nd Street from medium-density manufacturing to high-density commercial and residential. Petitioners argued that the unconditional approval of the rezoning, based on hypothetical uses, was improper and that the review of offsite displacement was inadequate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the City's environmental review, including the study of worst-case hypothetical scenarios, satisfied SEQRA. The court also concluded that the review of offsite displacement was sufficient.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRAZoning RezoningHypothetical UsesWorst-Case ScenariosOffsite DisplacementAs-of-Right DevelopmentRestrictive DeclarationNew York City Zoning ResolutionSpecial Clinton District
References
16
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04235 [185 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v. City of New York

This case concerns a challenge to the City of New York's rezoning plan for the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan. Petitioners, including Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale, sought to annul the City Council's resolutions, arguing that the environmental reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) were inadequate. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, granting their request to annul the rezoning plan. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the City's environmental review process was lawful and that it took the requisite 'hard look' at potential environmental impacts. The Appellate Division concluded that the City's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence, thereby denying the petition and dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Environmental LawRezoningSEQRACEQRArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewLand UseUrban PlanningAffordable HousingInwood Neighborhood
References
16
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00059
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2018

Matter of Wir Assoc., LLC v. Town of Mamakating

Petitioner Wir Associates, LLC, owns approximately 530 acres of property in the Town of Mamakating. The Town Board rezoned this property from a planned resort-office (PRO) district to Mountain Greenbelt (MG), which effectively prohibited a proposed large residential and commercial development. Petitioner initiated a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and action for declaratory judgment, challenging the rezoning as inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, illegal spot zoning, and stemming from a procedurally deficient State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, also seeking damages for a regulatory taking. The Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the entire petition/complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the regulatory taking claim due to ripeness issues and the SEQRA claim, finding the environmental assessment form complete. However, it reversed the dismissal of the claims alleging conflict with the comprehensive plan and reverse spot zoning, remitting these causes of action to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, as petitioner had articulated cognizable legal theories.

Zoning LawRezoningComprehensive PlanRegulatory TakingSpot ZoningReverse Spot ZoningSEQRA ReviewEnvironmental ImpactLand Use RegulationsMunicipal Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2010

Chinese Staff & Worker's Ass'n v. Burden

This dissenting opinion challenges the majority's decision that the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) complied with environmental review regulations (SEQRA and CEQR) during a rezoning project in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Petitioners, including the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association, argued that DCP's negative declaration, which stated no significant environmental impact, lacked a

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRZoningRezoningSunset Park BrooklynCommercial DevelopmentResidential DevelopmentNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1997

Byer v. Town of Poestenkill

This case is an appeal concerning the validity of Local Law No. 2 of the Town of Poestenkill, which allowed rezoning for gravel mining. The initial Supreme Court judgment annulled the law due to a purported conflict of interest by a Town Board member and an inadequate environmental review under SEQRA. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no conflict of interest as the financial benefit was speculative and the Ethics Board's finding of no conflict was rational. Furthermore, the court found the Town Board's SEQRA review sufficient, as it had thoroughly assessed environmental impacts. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court to address an unreviewed issue regarding protest petitions.

Environmental LawZoningLocal LawsConflict of InterestSEQRAJudicial ReviewTown BoardGravel MiningPublic OfficialsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 74 N.Y.2d 525
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1989

Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhaven

This case addresses the standing of a property owner to challenge an agency's compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when their property is the subject of a zone change. The New York Court of Appeals held that such an owner is presumptively adversely affected by SEQRA violations and does not need to plead specific environmental harm to establish standing. However, on the merits, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's determination that the Town of Brookhaven had complied with SEQRA mandates. The Town Board, acting as lead agency, properly identified environmental concerns, took a 'hard look,' and provided a reasoned elaboration in its negative declaration, issued before the rezoning approval, which changed the petitioner's 60-acre parcels from commercial to residential use.

StandingSEQRAZoning ChangeEnvironmental Impact ReviewProperty RightsNegative DeclarationAdministrative LawNew York Court of AppealsJudicial ReviewMunicipal Law
References
12
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2008

Collier Realty LLC v. Bloomberg

Petitioners, five real estate development companies, sought to annul amendments to the zoning map and text in Far Rockaway, Queens, which were approved by the City Council on August 14, 2008. These amendments revised the New York City Zoning Resolution of 1961 and affected a significant area. The petitioners challenged the rezoning on procedural and substantive grounds, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) mandates. The court first affirmed the petitioners' standing before meticulously evaluating the agency's environmental review process. Ultimately, the court found that the City Planning Department, as the lead agency, had taken a "hard look" at relevant environmental concerns and reasonably exercised its discretion, thus denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding.

Zoning LawLand UseEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRArticle 78 ProceedingNegative DeclarationReal Estate DevelopmentJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 13 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