You are here: / / 1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT...

1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINATY PLAT APPLICATION; HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES MADE TO THE PROJECT, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

The Second Department determined that a 1987 negative declaration with respect to a preliminary plat application had not expired and was still valid. Therefore, the planning board’s determination that a new State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review was necessary was annulled. However, since changes had been made to the project, the planning board has the power to amend or rescind the original negative declaration:

 

…[I]n light of … the changes to the project, the Planning Board has the responsibility to assess whether the 1987 negative declaration should be amended (see 6 NYCRR 617.7[e][1]) or “must” be rescinded (6 NYCRR 617.7[f][1]) under the standards set forth in 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) … . The provisions of 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f) specifically authorize an agency to take into account changes in projects, new information, and changed circumstances affecting a project.

The Planning Board erroneously concluded that the amendment and rescission provisions were, by their terms, inapplicable. Rescission and amendment are authorized “[a]t any time prior to [the lead agency’s] decision to . . . approve an action” (6 NYCRR 617.7[e], [f]). Here, the Planning Board has never given final approval for subdivision of the entire parcel or for subdivision of the portion of the parcel the plaintiffs/petitioners now seek to develop. Accordingly, contrary to its conclusion otherwise, the Planning Board is still authorized to assess possible adverse environmental impacts with respect to the proposed East Mountain North subdivision pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.7(e) and (f). Leonard v Planning Bd. of Town of Union Vale, 2016 NY Slip Op 01156, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/STATE ENVIRONMENT QUALITY REVIEW ACT [SEQRA] (1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)/LAND USE (SEQRA, 1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH RESPECT TO A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION DID NOT EXPIRE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT, PLANNING BOARD HAS POWER TO AMEND OR RESCIND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION)

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 13O4 AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Unpreserved Erroneous Denial of Challenge to Juror Required Reversal
DAMAGES IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE FOR A TORN MENISCUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S DOMINANT HAND ($25,000 FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING AND $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING) WERE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPLR 4404(a) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH RESULTED IN ICE ACCUMULATION. PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case—Plaintiff’s Statements in Hospital Record Not Admissible—No Relation to Diagnosis and Not Admissions
THE SIX-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION, WHICH WAS COMMENCED SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY AFTER PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT WAS TERMINATED, WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Arbitrability of Dispute Involving Public Employees Succinctly Explained

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

A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN...