You are here: / / Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer S...

Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The Second Department determined petitioners did not have standing to bring an action alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because petitioners’ properties were not sufficiently close to the location of the development project:

To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA … . An injury in fact may be inferred from a showing of close proximity of the petitioner’s property to the proposed development … . Generally, the relevant distance is the distance between the petitioner’s property and the actual structure or development itself, not the distance between the petitioner’s property and the property line of the site … . Here, the individual petitioners’ properties were not located in sufficient proximity to the proposed development to give rise to standing … . Matter of Tuxedo Land Trust Inc v Town Bd of Town of Tuxedo, 2013 NY Slip Op 08255, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

You might also like
AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Murder Conviction Against the Weight of the Evidence—Strangulation Was the Result of an Attempt to Increase Sexual Pleasure—No Intent to Kill
Measure of Damages for Taken Land Explained
Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46
RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
COMMON CARRIER DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP SIDEWALK CLEAR OF ICE AND SNOW BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK SERVED AS INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SEVERAL COMMON CARRIERS, NOT SOLELY DEFENDANT COMMON CARRIER.
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER DECEDENT REVOKED A LOST WILL.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Understood the Reference to the “Appellate Division” Was a Reference... Service Upon Opposing Party of Objections to Support Magistrate’s Order Is...