green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
WOOSTER, MARGARET v. QUEEN CITY LANDING, LLC
The record establishes that the Planning Board took the requisite hard look and provided a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination regarding the potential impacts of the project on aesthetic resources and community character, particularly with respect to the height of the building (see Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd., 107 AD3d 1347 , 1350 [2013]; Matter of Schweichler v Village of Caledonia, 45 AD3d 1281, 1283 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 703 [2008]); migratory birds, especially in light of the project’s conformance with accepted governmental guidelines to mi…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Wooster v. Queen City Landing, LLC
The record establishes that the Planning Board took the requisite hard look and provided a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination regarding the potential impacts of the project on aesthetic resources and community character, particularly with respect to the height of the building ( see Matter of Frigault v Town of Richfield Planning Bd. , 107 AD3d 1347 , 1350; Matter of Schweichler v Village of Caledonia , 45 AD3d 1281, 1283 , lv denied 10 NY3d 703 ); migratory birds, especially in light of the project's conformance with accepted governmental guidelines to mitigate bird impact…
discussed
Cited "see"
Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc. v. Planning Board
“Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination” (Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 NY3d 219, 231-232 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Granger Group v Town of Taghkanic, 77 AD3d 1137, 1141 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 781 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Sue Ann Paivanas
v.
The Resource Center, Workers' Compensation Board
v.
The Resource Center, Workers' Compensation Board
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 22, 2011.
944 N.E.2d 1145
2011 N.Y. LEXIS 237
Published
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.