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 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
Nov 17, 2004

Two Trees Farm, Inc. v. Planning Board of Town of Southampton

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by petitioners to challenge a determination made by the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton. The Planning Board had conditionally approved the petitioners' application for preliminary subdivision approval after amending their draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), citing concerns about the subdivision's consistency with a voluntary agricultural conservation program. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted the petition, annulled the Planning Board's determinations, remitted the matter, and directed the Board to approve the application. However, the appellate court found the Planning Board's decision to amend the DEIS arbitrary and capricious, affirming the annulment of the determinations and the need for further environmental review based on the original DEIS. Crucially, the appellate court modified the judgment by removing the directive for the Planning Board to approve the subdivision, emphasizing that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the Planning Board on substantive State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) matters.

CPLR Article 78Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardSubdivision ApprovalDraft Environmental Impact StatementFinal Environmental Impact StatementArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionAnnulment
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05049 [163 AD3d 577]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Peterson v. Planning Bd. of the City of Poughkeepsie

This case concerns an appeal by Jeanette Peterson, representing the Historic Southside Neighborhood Association, challenging a lower court's decision that upheld a negative declaration issued by the Planning Board of the City of Poughkeepsie. The negative declaration was related to Thomas LaPerch's application for site plan approval to construct multi-family housing near a historic district. The Association argued that the Planning Board's determination violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by failing to adequately assess environmental impacts. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, finding the Planning Board's issuance of a negative declaration arbitrary and capricious due to its conclusory findings regarding historic impact and its unsubstantiated claims about vegetation removal. The court remitted the matter to the Planning Board, ordering the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousSite Plan ApprovalDutchess County
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01020 [235 AD3d 1124]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd.

The case involves an appeal by Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. against the Town of Moreau Planning Board, Raymond Apy, and Saratoga Biochar Solutions, LLC. The appeal challenged a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul the Planning Board's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its approval of a site plan for a biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Planning Board failed to take a 'hard look' at the project's potential adverse impacts, particularly concerning hazardous air pollutant emissions. The court concluded that the Planning Board's unexplained deference to DEC permitting standards without a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious, thus granting the petition and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Environmental ImpactState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Planning Board DeterminationHazardous Air PollutantsBiosolids RemediationSite Plan ApprovalNegative Declaration RescissionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, a region critical for the area's drinking water aquifer and unique ecology. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that SEQRA's requirements for mandatory cumulative impact statements do not apply to this situation. The court distinguished between a general governmental policy of protecting a region and a specific governmental plan for development, asserting that only the latter triggers mandatory cumulative review. It emphasized that a centralized planning approach by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, as outlined in ECL article 55, is the appropriate mechanism for managing development in such a vast and sensitive area, rather than piecemeal decisions through individual SEQRA reviews. While acknowledging the environmental urgency and the delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, the court concluded that the solution must come from legislative action, not by extending SEQRA's existing provisions.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative Impact StatementPine BarrensLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningSuffolk CountyState Environmental Quality Review ActECL Article 55
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03008
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2023

Matter of Andes v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Riverhead

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by William F. Andes, Jr., and others, challenging a determination by the Planning Board of the Town of Riverhead. The Planning Board had approved a minor lot subdivision application for John and Sandra Reeve and classified it as a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), thereby exempting it from further environmental review. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, annulled the Planning Board's determination, citing a failure to comply with SEQRA, and remitted the matter for a proper environmental impact analysis. On appeal by the Planning Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, ruling that the Planning Board's Type II classification was arbitrary and capricious. The Appellate Division found no rational basis in the record for the classification and noted that subsequent amendments to the Town Code supporting such a classification were not applicable at the time of the Board's decision.

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Minor SubdivisionPlanning BoardTown CodeArbitrary and CapriciousCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewLand UseZoning Board of AppealsEnvironmental Impact Analysis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,996 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