Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Planning Board of Town of Southeast

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided August 8, 2006Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Spolzino, J.,

concurs in part and dissents in part and votes to dismiss the appeal from the decision and to affirm the judgments, with the following memorandum: I have a somewhat different view of the record than my colleagues. As I see it, the Planning Board took the requisite hard look at the areas of environmental concern identified by the Supreme Court in its prior determination and, based upon that review, rationally determined on the basis of substantial evidence in the record that no supplemental environmental impact statement (hereinafter SEIS) was necessary pursuant to the State…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Halperin v. City of New RochelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  3. Akpan v. KochNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Board of EstimateNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Schodack Concerned Citizens v. Town Board of SchodackAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API