Matter of Rappl & Hoenig Co., Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The Appellate Division erred, however, in the reasons given for leaving the matter with Special Term. The determination of whether the petitioner’s property could be drained without endangering the environment, as well as other issues concerning the use of the property, may be raised only after a determination that the subject property comes within the Freshwater Wetlands Act (ECL 24-0107, subd 1). If it is determined that the property comes within the purview of the act, questions concerning the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jack Coletta, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental ConservationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- People v. BondiWebster Justice of the Peace Court · 1980
- Tilles v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1985
- Gazza v. New York State Department of Environmental ConservationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Rappl & Hoenig Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental ConservationNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.