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responsibility to assess whether the 1987 negative declaration should be amended (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[e][1]) or “must” be rescinded (6 NYCRR 617.7[f][1]) under the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) … .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 AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON (SECOND DEPT).
Two-Hour Interval Did Not Return Defendant to Status of One Who Was Not Under the Influence of Unwarned Questioning—Subsequent Mirandized Statement Should Have Been Suppressed—Harmless Error Here However
MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, PURSUANT TO PETITIONER’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, THE RECORDS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FATHER ATTEMPTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT WAS LATE; FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT NONE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED; AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT ABANDON THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AS OPPOSED TO THE NY STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH; PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON A THEORY OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW; NO EVIDENCE OF DIMENSIONS OF DEFECT SUBMITTED.

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...