You are here: / / EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE...
,

EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN A SEQRA REVIEW; PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS WERE ISSUED.

The Fourth Department determined two village officials did not have a conflict of interest which would preclude their participation in a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review of a development project. The two had expressed opposition to the project before and after their elections, but expression of opinion does not create a conflict of interest. The Fourth Department upheld the annulment of resolutions which stated the proposed project would adversely affect the environment. The planning board had previously found no adverse impact (a negative declaration) and had issued permits. The board did not have the authority to rescind the negative declaration at that point:

… [T]he Board lacked authority to rescind its negative declaration under the circumstances of this case. Here, the Board was authorized to rescind its negative declaration “prior to its decision to undertake, fund, or approve an action,” and the Board made its decision to approve the action, i.e., the Project, when it issued the requisite special permits … . Matter of Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC v Village of Pittsford, 2016 NY Slip Op 01929, 4th Dept 3-18-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN SEQRA REVIEW)/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS ISSUED)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DID NOT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PRECLUDING VILLAGE OFFICIALS FROM PARTICIPATING IN SEQRA REVIEW)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PLANNING BOARD DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO RESCIND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AFTER PERMITS ISSUED)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for a Warrantless Blood Swab
THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL DID NOT EXPLICITLY RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPLICIT IN THE VERDICT AND THEREFORE THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CITY MAY NOT CHARGE A FEE FOR REVIEW AND REDACTION OF POLICE BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE PURSUANT TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE,... INADEQUATE WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL REQUIRED REVERSAL; PRESERVATION OF THIS...