Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] 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.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
The Guaranty Law Continues to Divide Opinion
By Matthew J. Schenker and Joshua Kopelowitz
This article discusses the recent developments surrounding the constitutionality of the Guaranty Law. In particular, we address the Southern District’s view that the statute is unconstitutional and the splintered view of the statute’s constitutionality expressed by New York State courts.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
ZBA’s Abandonment of Its Prior Determination Invalid
Denial of Area Variance Upheld
Lease of Town Property Upheld; Property Not Subject to Public Trust
East Side Rezoning Upheld Against SEQRA Challenge
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Partial Constructive Eviction Defense Recognized
Condition Precedent to Sub-Sublease Not Satisfied
Guaranty Law Does Not Bar Liquidated Damages Claim
Penalty for Improper Conversion of Residential Building
Force Majeure Clause Reduces Pandemic-Era Rent
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Contract Language Does Not Bar Purchaser’s Recovery of Prejudgment Interest