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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
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
Jul 11, 1989

Ginsburg Development Corp. v. Town Board

Ginsberg Development Corp. (GDC) filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Town Board of Cortlandt's amendment to a "steep slopes ordinance" and its negative SEQRA declaration. The amendment significantly reduced the allowable housing units on GDC's property. The central issue was whether the Town Board adequately considered the socioeconomic impacts, particularly on "affordable housing," during its environmental review. The court determined that the Town Board failed to take a "hard look" at these impacts and did not provide a reasoned elaboration for its decision. Consequently, the court annulled both the negative SEQRA declaration and the amendment to the ordinance.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAZoning OrdinanceSteep SlopesAffordable HousingSocioeconomic ImpactNegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Land Use PlanningJudicial Review
References
5
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

Bohlke v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiffs, former employees, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against their former employer under the Human Rights Law, asserting claims based on both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The defendant contested the disparate impact claims, arguing they were not recognized under New York law. While the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding discovery and amendment, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the New York Human Rights Law for age discrimination when the protected class is defined as broadly as individuals aged 18 and over, making it impossible for a subgroup (e.g., over 40) to demonstrate disparate impact on the entire class. Consequently, the court dismissed the disparate impact claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. Additionally, the appellate court reversed a sua sponte discovery order by the Supreme Court, citing a lack of notice and opportunity for the defendant to be heard on those specific demands.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawEmployment LawReduction in ForceDiscoveryAppellate ReviewNew York LawProtected Class
References
8
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

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

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
Feb 24, 1987

Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corp. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning the City of New York's plan to increase the number of buildings used as a shelter for homeless men at the Greenpoint Hospital site. Petitioners, including the Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corporation, sought compliance with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the filing of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and an injunction against using the West Building. The Supreme Court initially granted relief. On appeal, the judgment was modified, deleting findings on environmental impact and vacating the injunction. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making administrative decisions regarding environmental impact and that an emergency exemption applied to the West Building, allowing the city to proceed.

Homeless Shelter ExpansionEnvironmental ReviewLand Use ProcedureInjunctionEmergency ExemptionGreenpoint HospitalSEQRA ComplianceCEQR ComplianceULURP ComplianceJudicial Review Scope
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 603 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