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.
When Is A Pretext By A Municipality A Bar To Land Use Approvals?
By Steven M. Silverberg
Recently, there have been several instances in which municipalities have been challenged by property owners claiming that the municipal boards have utilized delaying tactics and other actions as a pretext to prevent development of their properties.
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Housing Discrimination Claim Dismissed
Co-Op Did Not Breach Shareholder’s Guaranty Agreement
Co-Op Not Exempt from Lead Paint Mandate
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Environmental Group Has Standing But Loses On the Merits of Challenge to Subdivision Approval
Applicant Entitled to Permit For Small Wireless Facilities
By New York Real Estate Law Reporter Staff
Occupation of Premises Does Not Establish Assignment By Operation of Law
Amendment to Rent Stabilization Law Is Not Unconstitutional