When Is a SEQRA Determination Ripe for Judicial Review?
Albert J. Pirro Jr. writes: Generally, SEQRA determinations are ordinarily considered steps in a land use decision making process and therefore not ripe for judicial review. There are exceptions when a SEQRA determination alone does inflict concrete injury and commences the running of the period of limitations applicable to Article 78 proceedings.
June 27, 2017 at 12:00 AM
7 minute read
Generally, SEQRA determinations are ordinarily considered steps in a land use decision making process and therefore not ripe for judicial review. Matter of Yorktown v. NYS Department of Mental Hygiene, 92 A.D.2d 897 (2d Dept. 1983) affirmed 59 N.Y.2d 999. There are exceptions when a SEQRA determination alone does inflict concrete injury and commences the running of the period of limitations applicable to Article 78 proceedings.
A determination by a lead agency regarding the State Environmental Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617 et. seq. (SEQRA) is an administrative determination. An administrative determination to be “ripe for adjudication” must be “final and binding.” CPLR 217[1] and 7801[1].
The Court of Appeals has made clear that a legislative body's simultaneous issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA and adoption of a local law makes both the SEQRA determination, and, adoption of the local law, ripe for adjudication even if there are conditions attached to the approval. In Matter of Eadie v. Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 7 N.Y.3d 306 (2006). In Matter of Eadie, the court held that the statute of limitations commenced upon adoption of the local law, not upon adoption of a SEQRA findings statement one month prior. The SEQRA findings statement did not present a concrete injury. The injury occurred upon adoption of the local law. But suppose the findings statement was adopted by an improper SEQRA lead agency?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readAre Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
10 minute readTrump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250