Legal Opinion
Har Enterprises v. Town of Brookhaven
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 30, 1989PublishedCited by 91 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Hancock, Jr., J.
We granted petitioner leave to appeal in order to address a question pertaining to standing: whether an owner of property which is the subject of a zone change must plead specific environmental harm to challenge the sufficiency of an agency’s efforts to comply with SEQRA. We hold that where, as here, the very subject of the proposed action (ECL 8-0105 [4]) is petitioner’s property, petitioner is presumptively adversely affected by the violation of SEQRA requirements and that no such specific allegation is necessary (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- 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
- Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by91 opinions
- Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of SuffolkNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of SardiniaNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Industrial Development AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Association for a Better Long Island, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental ConservationNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Saratoga Lake Protection & Improvement District v. Department of Public Works of Saratoga SpringsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
86 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.