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
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ONLY CANCELLATION OF A MORTGAGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED THE NOTE AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEARLY $10 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE; IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT DOCTOR SHOULD HAVE SENT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO PLAYED A ROLE IN PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SUICIDE THE NEXT DAY (SECOND DEPT).
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable

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 © 2025 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...