Legal Opinion
Cade v. Stapf
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 26, 2012PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRose, J.
*1230We turn first to the threshold issue of standing, and petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred by narrowly limiting his standing to challenge the Planning Board’s determinations. Supreme Court found that petitioner demonstrated an injury-in-fact within the zone of interest sought to be protected by SEQRA so as to have standing to challenge the Planning Board’s SEQRA determination based on the proximity of his property to the project and his view of the proposed water tower located 400 feet from his house (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 773-774 [1991];…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of SuffolkNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v. Board of Zoning & AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Oates v. Village of Watkins GlenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Ziemba v. City of TroyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc. v. MartensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Hart v. Town of GuilderlandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Citizens For St. Patrick's v. City of Watervliet City CouncilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition, Inc. v. MartensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Matter of Arthur M. v. Town of Germantown Planning Bd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020