Legal Opinion

Abrams v. Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1986PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph D. Mintz, J.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, or alternatively for preliminary injunction pending resolution of his action for permanent injunction based on defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the provisions of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ failure to file an environmental impact statement (EIS) and the manner by which defendants completed each environmental assessment (EA) were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and violative of SEQRA.

Many of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kirk-Astor Drive Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town Board of Town of PittsfordAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Niagara Recycling, Inc. v. Town Board of NiagaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  3. Soule v. Town of ColonieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
  4. Niagara Recycling, Inc. v. Town Board of NiagaraNew York Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ecumenical Task Force of Niagara Frontier, Inc. v. Love Canal Area Revitalization AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
  2. Abrams v. Love Canal Area Revitalization AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  3. Congdon v. Washington CountyNew York Supreme Court · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API