Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Judicial oversight in the environmental review process presents a regular zone of conflict both nationally and within New York State. Since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, which spawned the subsequent enactment of state “Little NEPA’s,” questions of what issues must be analyzed, how substantive that review must be, and the degree of deference given to the agency conducting the review have continued to drive litigation, increasing the costs and dramatically expanding the schedule for projects requiring a discretionary governmental action. The New York Court of Appeals has long established that an agency’s assessment of environmental impacts pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, or SEQRA, is entitled to substantial deference, admonishing lower courts that it is not their role to substitute their judgment for the judgment of agencies undertaking the action.
By Lisa Clare Kombrink
The Appellate Division, Second Department, recently decided Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Suffolk County Legislature, an important case that pitted the interests of farmers and conservationists against a local advocacy group focused on open space and water quality.
Broker Agreed to Commission Based on Rent for First Five Years of Lease
Statements in Earlier Action Did Not Accelerate Mortgage and Trigger Statute of Limitations
Death Does Not Extend Foreclosure Limitations Period
Neighbor Granted Statutory Licence to Paint Fence
Record Did Not Establish Conveyance of Easement
Co-Tenant Entitled to Partition
Town Entitled To Injunctive Relief for Violation of Certificate of Occupancy
Guarantor May Not Interpose Wrongful Eviction Defense
Landlord Bound by Renewal Lease Signed After Judgment of Possession
Notice of Nonrewnal Sufficient to Withstand Jurisdictional Challenge
Incarcerated Son Not Entitled to Succession Rights
Occupant Did Not Establish Succession Rights
Court Dismisses Tortious Interference Claim By Holder of First Refusal Right