You are here: / / 1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT...

1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINATY PLAT APPLICATION; HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES MADE TO THE PROJECT, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

The Second Department determined that a 1987 negative declaration with respect to a preliminary plat application had not expired and was still valid. Therefore, the planning board’s determination that a new State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review was necessary was annulled. However, since changes had been made to the project, the planning board has the power to amend or rescind the original negative declaration:

 

…[I]n light of … the changes to the project, the Planning Board has the responsibility to assess whether the 1987 negative declaration should be amended (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[e][1]) or “must” be rescinded (6 NYCRR 617.7[f][1]) under the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) … . The provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) specifically authorize an agency to take into account changes in projects, new information, and changed circumstances affecting a project.

The Planning Board erroneously concluded that the amendment and rescission provisions were, by their terms, inapplicable. Rescission and amendment are authorized “[a]t any time prior to [the lead agency’s] decision to . . . approve an action” (6 NYCRR 617.7[e], [f]). Here, the Planning Board has never given final approval for subdivision of the entire parcel or for subdivision of the portion of the parcel the plaintiffs/petitioners now seek to develop. Accordingly, contrary to its conclusion otherwise, the Planning Board is still authorized to assess possible adverse environmental impacts with respect to the proposed East Mountain North subdivision pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f). Leonard v Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 2016 NY Slip Op 01156, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/STATE ENVIRONMENT QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/LAND USE (SEQRA, 1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)

You might also like
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS ELEVATOR-ACCIDENT CASE, THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO A CONDITIONAL JUDGMENT ON CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THE ELEVATOR-MAINTENANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE PRIMARY ACTION IS DETERMINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPPRACTICE ACTION WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLEA TO ASSAULT FIRST WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE INTENT TO INFLICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WAS NOT STATED IN THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Could Not Recover From Property Owners Absent Proof the Owners Consented to Pay the Subcontractor—Owners Hired the General Contractor Who In Turn Hired the Subcontractor
THE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

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

A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN...