You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION...
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the negative declaration issued by the town under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because the sewer construction approved by the town was 15 miles from plaintiff’s property. The Third Department further found that plaintiff’s actions should have been brought as an Article 78 and therefore was time-barred, and his First Amendment arguments, alleging the town should have responded to his “Petition for the Redress of Grievances Regarding the Proposed [sewer district].” were meritless:

Plaintiff does not have standing to raise the SEQRA claims. “In land use matters especially, [the Court of Appeals] ha[s] long imposed the limitation that the plaintiff, for standing purposes, must show that [he or she] would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large [and] [t]his requirement applies whether the challenge to governmental action is based on a SEQRA violation, or other grounds” … .Plaintiff does not reside in the Town. Although his homestead apparently straddles the Town line such that 1.2 acres of his land is situated in the Town, his property is located outside of — and approximately 15 miles away from — the sewer district. Moreover, plaintiff’s status as a taxpayer, by itself, does not grant him standing to challenge the establishment of the sewer district … . …

Plaintiff’s SEQRA challenge is also time-barred. Regardless of how a plaintiff may label or style his or her claim, courts must look to the core of the underlying claim and the relief sought and, if the claim could have been properly addressed in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding, a four-month statute of limitations will apply … . * * *

… [T]he First Amendment does not “guarantee[] a citizen’s right to receive a government response to or official consideration of a petition for redress of grievances” … . Schulz v Town Bd. of the Town of Queensbury, 2019 NY Slip Op 07667, Third Dept 10-24-19

 

You might also like
CORRECTION OFFICER NOT ENTITLED TO TWO-YEAR LEAVE OF ABSENCE; THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE FINDING PETITIONER’S PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WITH AN INMATE WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED.
THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL.
MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE DETERMINATION MADE BY AN APPOINTED HEARING OFFICER, PETITIONER FIREFIGHTER ENTITLED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW BENEFITS.
ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE.
A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Dry-Cleaning Chemical, PERC, Is Not “Petroleum” Within the Meaning of the Navigation Law—Plaintiff’s Suit for Clean-Up of PERC Under the Navigation Law Properly Dismissed

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

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION... TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO COMPEL THE WITNESS WHO ASSERTED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT...