You are here: / / VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT FAIL TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE STATE...
,

VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DID NOT FAIL TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village comprehensive plan and zoning amendments should not have been annulled on the ground the board of trustees failed to strictly comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA):

“SEQRA mandates literal compliance with its procedural requirements and substantial compliance is insufficient to discharge the responsibility of the agency under the act” … . As relevant here, 6 NYCRR 617.6(a)(4) permits an agency to waive the requirement for an environmental assessment form (hereinafter EAF) if a draft environmental impact statement is prepared or submitted. In this case, such a draft environmental impact statement was prepared. Thus, the failure to prepare an EAF did not amount to a failure to literally comply with SEQRA's procedural requirements. * * *

… [T]he Board of Trustees satisfied SEQRA's substantive requirements. In particular, the Board of Trustees adequately analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied so much of the petition/complaint as sought to annul the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Amendments on the ground that the Board of Trustees failed to strictly comply with the substantive requirements of SEQRA … . Matter of Village of Kiryas Joel, N.Y. v Village of Woodbury, N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 03005, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.
PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMONSTRATED HE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FORMULATE A COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HIS REQUEST FOR PRE-JOINDER DISCOVERY AND PRESERVATION OF THE ACCIDENT SCENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF LICENSE PLATE READERS (LPR’S) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENTS ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE INSTALLATION OF GAS LINES MADE BY DEFENDANT WHO WAS HIRED TO FIND THE CAUSE OF THE GAS LEAKS PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED COMMON-INTEREST PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
Contract to Share Commissions with Person Not Licensed to Sell Insurance is Illegal and Unenforceable
Husband’s Contribution to Purchase of Home by Wife’s Parents Constituted a Constructive Trust

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

ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN CORE... FORECLOSURE COULD PROCEED DESPITE ERRONEOUS SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE.