You are here: / / PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION...
,

PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT NEAR A STATE PARK.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined the petitioner did not have standing to challenge the construction of a temporary asphalt plant near a state forest. The conclusory allegations of pollution of the park by a member of petitioner-organization were not enough:

 

” [I]n land use matters . . . the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . Whether an organization or association has standing involves the application of the three-pronged test set forth in Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (77 NY2d at 775). As pertinent to this appeal, the first prong of that test requires that the organization or association demonstrate that “one or more of its members would have standing to sue” as an individual (id.). An individual has standing where he or she “would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” (id. at 774) and “the in-fact injury of which [he or she] complains . . . falls within the zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (id. at 773, …). Here, the petitioner submitted an affidavit from one of its members asserting that he frequently used the area of Stewart State Forest that was closest to the temporary asphalt plant. However, his allegations that the operation of the plant polluted the natural resources of the forest were conclusory and speculative, and therefore, insufficient to establish standing… . Matter of Stewart Park & Reserve Coalition, Inc. v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2016 NY Slip Op 01685, 2nd Dept 3-9-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)/LAND USE (PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)/STANDING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LAND USE, PETITIONER ORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE CONSTRUCTION OF ASPHALT PLANT)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE LANDLORD ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARMTENTS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Electricity-Supplier (Con Edison) Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to a Shareholder in an Apartment Cooperative Who Fell in a Common Area During a Power Outage/Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge of the Cause of His Fall Was Fatal to the Lawsuit
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE “DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE” OF A MOTION FOR A REDUCED SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE CORROBORATING THAT DEFENDANT WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE, CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NECESSARILY DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPOUSES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PUBLICATION IN A DEFAMATIOIN... MOTHER FAILED TO FIRST USE LESS DRASTIC CHILD-SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS,...