You are here: / / ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN...

ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN CORE PRESERVATION AREA.

The Second Department found that petitioner Richard Amper, director of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc., had standing, in his individual and representative capacities, to contest a hardship waiver granted to respondent, Westhampton, which operated a sand and gravel mine within a “core preservation area.” The Second Department found that the waiver was properly granted, but further found the petition should not have been denied on the standing issue. With respect to standing, the court explained:

An association or organization has standing when “one or more of its members would have standing to sue,” “the interests it asserts are germane to its purposes,” and “neither the asserted claim nor the appropriate relief requires the participation of the individual members” … . Here, the petitioners established that Amper, in both his individual and professional capacities, uses and enjoys the Pine Barrens to a greater degree than most other members of the public. Further, the petitioners established that the threatened injury to Amper caused by development within the core preservation area of the Central Pine Barrens falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act of 1993 … . Thus, Amper has standing to sue individually, and his standing satisfied the first prong of the test for the Society's organizational standing. The Society meets the second and third prongs of the organizational standing test, namely, that its interests in the instant proceeding are germane to its purposes, and that neither the asserted claim nor the appropriate relief requires the participation of the individual members … . Therefore, the Society also has standing to challenge the Commission's determination … . Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy., Inc. v Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning & Policy Commn., 2016 NY Slip Op 02997, 4-20-16


You might also like
THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION CAN BE REMEDIED BY A MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER AND BY RAISING THE DEFENSE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE TIMES SHE WAS DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW CAN BE BASED UPON A CLARIFICATION OF DECISIONAL LAW, BUT NOT, AS WAS THE CASE HERE, ON A DECISION APPLYING ESTABLISHED LAW TO THE FACTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES DID NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TO CONTEST THE ANNUAL INSPECTION FEES; A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY BASED UPON A STATUTORY DUTY WILL NOT FLY UNLESS THE STATUTE PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED IF IT SETS FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IF THE SORA COURT’S RELIANCE ON THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY,... VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT FAIL TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL...