Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Development
Failure to Comply with SEQRA Time Requirements Merits Mandamus Relief
Matter of Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Town Board
NYLJ 12/12/11, p. 23, col. 2
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus, the town appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that failure to comply with SEQRA's time requirements justified mandamus relief.
In 2001, Costco applied for a special use permit and for site plan approval to build and operate a retail store. In 2003, the Town Board denied the petition for a special use permit, leading Costco to bring an article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Supreme Court vacated the denial and remitted to the board for compliance with
SEQRA. In 2004, the board issued a positive declaration. The board accepted Costco's on Nov. 14, 2006. The public hearing was held on Jan. 9, 2007, and the public comment period ended on Jan. 31, 2007. Costco then made three separate submissions of final environmental impact statements (FEIS) between May 2007 and April 2009. Nevertheless, the town board has not filed an FEIS. Costco then brought this article 78 proceeding to compel the board to file an FEIS and complete environmental review. Supreme Court granted the petition.
In affirming, the Appellate Division relied on the applicable SEQRA provision requiring the board to prepare an final EIS within 45 days after close of any hearing or within 60 days after filing of the draft EIS, whichever comes later. 6 NYCRR 617.9[a][5]. In light of that provision, the court concluded that Costco was entitled to mandamus relief.
Failure to Comply with SEQRA Time Requirements Merits Mandamus Relief
Matter of
NYLJ 12/12/11, p. 23, col. 2
AppDiv, Second Dept.
(memorandum opinion)
In an article 78 proceeding in the nature of mandamus, the town appealed from Supreme Court's grant of the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that failure to comply with SEQRA's time requirements justified mandamus relief.
In 2001, Costco applied for a special use permit and for site plan approval to build and operate a retail store. In 2003, the Town Board denied the petition for a special use permit, leading Costco to bring an article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. Supreme Court vacated the denial and remitted to the board for compliance with
SEQRA. In 2004, the board issued a positive declaration. The board accepted Costco's on Nov. 14, 2006. The public hearing was held on Jan. 9, 2007, and the public comment period ended on Jan. 31, 2007. Costco then made three separate submissions of final environmental impact statements (FEIS) between May 2007 and April 2009. Nevertheless, the town board has not filed an FEIS. Costco then brought this article 78 proceeding to compel the board to file an FEIS and complete environmental review. Supreme Court granted the petition.
In affirming, the Appellate Division relied on the applicable SEQRA provision requiring the board to prepare an final EIS within 45 days after close of any hearing or within 60 days after filing of the draft EIS, whichever comes later.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.