You are here: / / A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT ...

A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT ASSESSMENT CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED. 

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Health (DOH) had given the requisite “hard look” at air quality and noise mitigation issues for a school near a construction site. The Department of Health had approved the measures pursuant to a review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The First Department took pains to explain the limited powers of court-review of an agency finding:

It is axiomatic that judicial review of an agency determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look’ at them, and made a reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” … . Moreover, “[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decisionmaking and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Since it is the responsibility of the agency to analyze reports and other documents submitted to it, “it is not for a reviewing court to duplicate these efforts. As we have repeatedly stated, [w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency, for it is not their role to “weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives”‘” … .

Thus, the court’s province is to “assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . In this regard, “[d]issatisfaction with an agency’s proposed mitigation measures is not redressable by the courts so long as those measures have a rational basis in the record” … . Matter of Friends of P.S. 163, Inc. v Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, 2017 NY Slip Op 00383, 1st Dept 1-19-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED)/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT TO A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUALITY ACT (SEQRA) REVIEW CLARIFIED, SUPREME COURT’S REJECTION OF AGENCY FINDINGS REVERSED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN HE RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING OFF THE ELECTRICITY (FIRST DEPT).
MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT PROVIDES NO BROADER SCOPE FOR THE SEARCH THAN WOULD A WARRANT ISSUED BASED ON THE SAME FACTS; HERE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA ON THE CONSOLE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK WHERE A FIREARM WAS FOUND (FIRST DEPT).
INSURANCE LAW 3105 DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE COMMON-LAW PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT IN THIS ACTION BY AN INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES.
Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant
Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained
POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST 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

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR...