You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS, RESIDENTS OF EAST BUFFALO, STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST...
, ,

PLAINTIFFS, RESIDENTS OF EAST BUFFALO, STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE STATE FOR VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE AND VIOLATION OF THE GREEN AMENDMENT TO THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXPRESSWAY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Nowak, over an extensive dissent, determined the complaint alleging the State, in constructing an expressway, violated the public trust doctrine and the Green Amendment, should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiffs are individual residents of East Buffalo who contend that they suffered adverse health consequences due to traffic on a nearby expressway (portions of New York State Routes 33 and 198) and an unincorporated association of people who live or work near the expressway. They commenced this action alleging that defendants: (1) violated the public trust doctrine by alienating parkland comprising the former Humboldt Parkway for the construction of the expressway; and (2) are violating the Green Amendment to the New York State Constitution (NY Const, art 1, § 19) by continuing to maintain and operate the expressway. * * *

Having expressly granted authority to construct arterial highways within parks in other cities and having declined to do so with respect to Humboldt Parkway, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the legislature “plainly conferred” the alienation of Humboldt Parkway … . * * *

The Green Amendment to the New York State Constitution states that “[e]ach person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment” (NY Const, art I, § 19 …). Plaintiffs specifically allege in the amended complaint that the Green Amendment is self-executing, and defendants did not dispute that contention below. East Side Parkways Coalition v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04562, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiffs, residents of East Buffalo who live near an expressway, stated causes of action against the State stemming from the construction of the expressway on land which once served as a park.

 

You might also like
WHERE FATHER RELINQUISHED CUSTODY BY CONSENT, HE NEED NOT MAKE A THRESHOLD SHOWING OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS CUSTODY PETITION, NUMEROUS LEGAL AND FACTUAL ERRORS BY THE JUDGE REQUIRED THAT THIS MATTER BE SENT BACK FOR HEARINGS AND RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND VISITATION ISSUES RAISED BY THE FATHER’S PETITION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ARE AMBIGUOUS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER COUNTY RETIREES WHO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE ARE ENTITLED TO THE FULL MEDICAL BENEFITS AFFORDED THEM AT RETIREMENT, EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, I.E., WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, SUPPORTS THE DETERMINATION THAT RETIREES WHO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICARE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FULL BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT.
In a Personal Injury Trial, Defense Counsel Should Have Been Permitted to Question Plaintiff About Possible Fraud in Income Tax Returns
Individual Employees of Defendant Can Be Named In the Complaint Even Though They Were Not Named in the Notice of Claim
THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY (A WATER BOTTLE UNDER THE ACCELERATOR) WAS OF THE DEFENDANT’S OWN MAKING; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST DEFENDANT DRIVER’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE JUDGE “MY LAWYER IS INEFFECTIVELY COUNSELING ME”... PRESENTING THE GRAND JURY WITH EVIDENCE SUBSEQUENTLY RULED IRRELEVANT DID NOT...