You are here: / / AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT...

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, addressing many substantive issues not summarized here, determined the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner’s rulings approving two development projects in the Catskills were proper. The DEC and the permit applicant were in agreement. Only the petitioners (apparently an alliance of affected property owners) were requesting further review, including a request for the adjudication of “substantive and significant” issues (which was denied). The court explained the criteria for further adjudication in this context:

Where, as here, there is no dispute between DEC staff and the permit applicant, adjudication is required only if the issue is “both substantive and significant” … . “An issue is substantive if there is sufficient doubt about the applicant’s ability to meet statutory or regulatory criteria applicable to the project, such that a reasonable person would require further inquiry” … . “An issue is significant if it has the potential to result in the denial of a permit, a major modification to the proposed project or the imposition of significant permit conditions in addition to those proposed in the draft permit” … . “The resolution of whether an issue is substantive and significant requiring an adjudicatory hearing is left to the Commissioner and will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is predicated upon an error of law, is arbitrary or capricious, or represents an abuse of discretion” … . Further, where “‘the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the agency’s expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight and judicial deference'” … . Matter of Catskill Heritage Alliance, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2018 NY Slip Op 02516, Third Dept 4-12-18

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/ADJUDICATION, REQUEST FOR (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) (AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLE OFFICER’S SEARCH OF PAROLEE’S APARTMENT, BASED UPON A TIP FROM A PERSON KNOWN TO THE PAROLE OFFICER, WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Implied Easement for Pipeline to Pond
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).
COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH’S DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE NYS MEDICAL INDEMNITY FUND FOR $12,000 TO PAY FOR A LIFT FOR A DISABLED CHILD WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).
THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).
HOTEL NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR SALES TAX FOR CONTINENTAL BREAKFASTS PURCHASED FROM A THIRD PARTY, CONTINENTAL BREAKFASTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE ROOM RENTAL AND WERE NOT PURCHASED FOR RESALE (THIRD 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

AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT... WATER DAMAGE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY, WAS DEMONSTRATED...