Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 9, 1992Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Sullivan, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the provisions of ECL article 55 (the Sole Source Aquifer Protection Act) constitute an adequate substitute for a comprehensive management plan for the area commonly known as the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, so as to mandate that the municipal respondents review the cumulative environmental impact of all proposed development projects within that area pursuant to the regulations enacted under ECL article 8 (the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act [hereinafter SEQRA]) before…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jackson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Akpan v. KochNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- 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
- Aldrich v. PattisonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.