You are here: / / THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NATURE PRESERVE...
, ,

THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE NATURE PRESERVE DID NOT GIVE THEM STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEQRA WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN’S PURCHASE OF THE PRESERVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioners did not have standing to contest the negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) allowing the town’s purchase of land held by a nature conservancy:

It is well settled that standing to challenge an alleged SEQRA violation by a governmental entity requires a petitioner to demonstrate “that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . Importantly, “[p]etitioners must have more than generalized environmental concerns to satisfy that burden and, unlike . . . cases involving zoning issues, there is no presumption of standing to raise a SEQRA or other environmental challenge based on a party’s close proximity alone” … .

Here, petitioners claim of standing is based upon the fact that they own property directly adjacent to the nature preserve and have asserted concerns that the Town, in conducting its SEQRA review, failed to consider the impact of increased motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and/or the environmental effect that a newly proposed parking lot and hiking trail would have on the nature preserve. Initially, assuming, without deciding, that petitioners adequately established their ownership interest in the property directly adjacent to the nature preserve, their position as adjacent landowners does not automatically confer standing on them to challenge the Town Board’s negative declaration … . Moreover, petitioners’ asserted concerns fail to allege any unique or distinct injury that they will suffer as a result of the Town’s proposed land acquisition that is not generally applicable to the public at large … . Matter of Hohman v Town of Poestenkill, 2020 NY Slip Op 00013, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

You might also like
NEITHER THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY NOR THE PLEA ALLOCUTION INDICATED THE TWO SEXUAL OFFENSES OCCURRED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED 3RD DEPT.
BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT FRAUDULENTLY EXAGGERATED THE EFFECTS OF HIS INJURIES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BOARD’S DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO WEAR AN ALCOHOL MONITORING DEVICE AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION BUT WAS UNABLE TO PAY FOR IT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PAY WAS WILLFUL, THEREFORE COUNTY COURT WAS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER PUNISHMENT OTHER THAN INCARCERATION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFECTS IN GUILTY PLEA NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP.
THE SCOPE OF A LANDOWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP PROPERTY IN A SAFE CONDITION IS MEASURED BY FORESEEABILITY, HERE A GRASSY PATH WAS CLEARED OF SNOW BY A SCHOOL CUSTODIAN, SO USE OF THE PATH WAS FORESEEABLE, HOWEVER THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PATH CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: the “Hostility” Element of a Prescriptive Easement
(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE TRUST PROVISION IN THE WILL WAS INVALID FOR LACK OF A BENEFICIARY; SURROGATE’S... PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER...