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
Mother’s Violations of Conditions of a Suspended Judgment, Under the Facts, Justified Termination of Parental Rights (Against the Wishes of the Child)
PETITION SEEKING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY FROM DECEDENT TO PETITIONER BY REFORMATION OF THE DEED OR A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AS WELL AS THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRUST ASSETS TO DECEDENT’S GRANDCHILDREN, AS OPPOSED TO DECEDENT’S SURVIVING DESCENDANTS, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
It May Be an Abuse of Discretion for the Board to Refuse to Review an Untimely Application Raising a Jurisdictional Issue/Board May Be Barred from Reopening a Closed Claim More than Seven Years After the Accident
AMOUNT OF HEROIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY SALE AND RELATED CONSPIRACY COUNTS DISMISSED.
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).
RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).
A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ALFORD PLEA, PLEA VACATED (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

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...