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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06273 [153 AD3d 823]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Matter of Green Earth Farms Rockland, LLC v. Town of Haverstraw Planning Bd.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning a development project in the Towns of Haverstraw and Ramapo. The petitioners challenged the Town of Haverstraw Planning Board's determination that a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not required for a proposed commercial development, specifically a large convenience store with 16 gas pumps. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which found that the Planning Board failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed gas station, thus annulling the SEQRA determination and site plan approval and remitting the matter for further proceedings. The appeal by the Town of Haverstraw Building Department was dismissed as not aggrieved, and the petition by John McDowell was dismissed due to lack of standing.

Environmental ReviewSEQRASite Plan ApprovalZoning AmendmentGas Station DevelopmentStandingJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPlanning Board DiscretionEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
20
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04669
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

Matter of Town of Beekman v. Town Bd. of the Town of Union Vale

The Town of Beekman initiated a hybrid proceeding challenging resolutions by the Town Board of Union Vale, which approved a telecommunications tower, deemed it exempt from Beekman's zoning, and issued negative environmental declarations under SEQRA. The Supreme Court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and upheld the resolutions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the 'balancing of public interests' test supported the Board's determination of zoning immunity for the project, citing its public benefit in addressing cellular coverage gaps and aiding emergency services. The court also found that the Board's SEQRA determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and was not arbitrary or capricious, having taken a hard look at environmental concerns.

zoning immunitytelecommunications towerenvironmental reviewSEQRACPLR Article 78public interest balancing testgovernmental entities conflictDutchess Countyappellate reviewland use regulation
References
13
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

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

Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo

This case involves an appeal brought by four villages and two residents of the Town of Ramapo challenging a local law enacted by the Town Board. The local law permits adult student living facilities in certain residential zones adjacent to the appellant villages. The appellants' combined petition asserted thirteen causes of action, primarily alleging the Town's failure to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), inconsistency with the Town's comprehensive plan, and procedural infirmities in the adoption of the local law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the amended petition, finding that the villages lacked legal capacity to sue and that all appellants lacked standing for various claims. The appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the villages had the capacity to sue and standing to assert claims under SEQRA and General Municipal Law § 239-m. The court also found that the resident appellants had standing for specific claims related to procedural compliance and consistency with the comprehensive plan. The case was ultimately remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of the reinstated causes of action.

Zoning LawLocal Law ChallengeEnvironmental ReviewSEQRAStanding to SueLegal Capacity to SueMunicipal Home Rule LawGeneral Municipal LawVillage LawTown Law
References
98
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04944 [162 AD3d 1777]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Matter of Town of Tonawanda (Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Assn.)

This case involves an arbitration matter between the Town of Tonawanda, as Respondent, and the Town of Tonawanda Salaried Workers Association, as Appellants. The Appellants' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The decision was rendered on June 29, 2018.

ArbitrationMotion to appealLeave to appealDenialAppellate practiceLabor lawPublic employmentCollective bargainingFourth DepartmentCourt of Appeals (denied)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 (2011) of the Town of New Paltz, aimed at protecting wetlands and watercourses, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and unconstitutional vagueness. The Supreme Court initially annulled the local law and negative declaration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board had fulfilled its SEQRA obligations by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns and issuing a reasoned negative declaration. The court also found the 2011 law not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice to property owners. Additionally, the court rejected claims regarding unconstitutional conservation fees, preemption by state laws, and minor procedural irregularities, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 5 (2011).

Environmental LawSEQRALocal Government LawWetlands ProtectionDeclaratory Judgment ActionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstitutional ChallengeVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingsLand Use Regulation
References
33
Case No. 14-CV-3192
Regular Panel Decision

Croci v. Town of Haverstraw

Plaintiff Cheryl Croci brought an action against the Town of Haverstraw and two individual defendants, George Wargo and Howard Phillips, alleging employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Croci, a personal assistant for the Town's Highway Department, claimed she was terminated after making complaints and filing lawsuits regarding a hostile work environment and sex discrimination. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Croci's due process, First Amendment, and state law claims, citing lack of a protected property interest in continued employment and non-compliance with state notice-of-claim statutes. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss her Title VII retaliation claim, deeming the "personal staff" exception argument premature.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentDue Process ViolationFirst Amendment ClaimNew York State Human Rights LawMotion to DismissPersonal Staff ExceptionStatute of Frauds
References
73
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
Showing 1-10 of 399 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