Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Omni Partners, L.P. v. County of Nassaugreen2 sentences2025"Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may', there is a relatively low threshold for the preparation of an EIS" ( Matter of Omni Partners, L.P., v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440 , 442 [2d Dept 1997]). 2025"Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may', there is a relatively low threshold for the preparation of an EIS" ( Matter of Omni Partners, L.P., v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440 , 442 [2d Dept 1997]). | 3 | 6 |
Group For The South Fork, Inc. v. Winesgreen2 sentences1997It is well settled that because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may’, there is a 'relatively low threshold for impact statements’ (Matter of Farrington Close Condominium, Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623 ; see also, Matter of Group For The S. Fork v Wines [ 190 AD2d 794 ]; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd. [ 137 AD2d 601 ]; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ). 1994It is well settled that because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is "may”, there is a relatively low threshold for impact statements (see, Matter of Group for S. Fork v Wines, 190 AD2d 794 ; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd., 137 AD2d 601, 603 ; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ). | 2 | 3 |
Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2007Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is “may,” there is a relatively low threshold for the preparation of an EIS (see Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359 [1986]; Matter of Omni Partners v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440, 441 [1997]; Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn. v Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 207 AD2d 837, 838 [1994]). 1997It is well settled that because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may’, there is a 'relatively low threshold for impact statements’ (Matter of Farrington Close Condominium, Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623 ; see also, Matter of Group For The S. Fork v Wines [ 190 AD2d 794 ]; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd. [ 137 AD2d 601 ]; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ). | 1 | 6 |
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Ass'n v. Jorlinggreen2 sentences2002Assn. v Jorling, supra). 2001Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 ; Matter of Kahn v Pasnik, 231 AD2d 568, 569 ; affd 90 NY2d 569 ). | 1 | 4 |
Farrington Close Condominium Board of Managers v. Incorporated Village of Southamptongreen2 sentences2010“Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is ‘may,’ there is a relatively.low threshold for the preparation of an EIS” (Matter of Omni Partners v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440, 442 [1997]; see Matter of UPROSE v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 603, 608 [2001]; Matter of Silvercup Studios v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 598, 600 [2001]; Matter of Farrington Close Condominium Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623, 624 [1994]). 1997It is well settled that because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may’, there is a 'relatively low threshold for impact statements’ (Matter of Farrington Close Condominium, Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623 ; see also, Matter of Group For The S. Fork v Wines [ 190 AD2d 794 ]; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd. [ 137 AD2d 601 ]; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ). | 1 | 3 |
West Branch Conservation Ass'n v. Planning Boardgreen2 sentences2007Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is “may,” there is a relatively low threshold for the preparation of an EIS (see Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359 [1986]; Matter of Omni Partners v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440, 441 [1997]; Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn. v Planning Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 207 AD2d 837, 838 [1994]). 1997Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 ; Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn. v Planning Bd., 207 AD2d 837, 838-839 ; Matter of Merson v McNally, 227 AD2d 487 ). | 1 | 2 |
Town of Dickinson v. County of Broomegreen2 sentences2025On the other hand, although an EIS is presumptively required for type I actions (see, Matter of Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome , 183 AD2d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 1992]), it is not a per se requirement ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of Town of Guilderland , 217 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 1995]] lv. denied 87 NY2d 803 [1995]) However, if an agency issues a negative declaration, eliminating the need for an EIS, it can only do so after it has "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern," taken "a 'hard look' at them, and "made a 'reasoned elaboration of the basis for its 2025On the other hand, although an EIS is presumptively required for type I actions (see, Matter of Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome , 183 AD2d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 1992]), it is not a per se requirement ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of Town of Guilderland , 217 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 1995]] lv. denied 87 NY2d 803 [1995]) However, if an agency issues a negative declaration, eliminating the need for an EIS, it can only do so after it has "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern," taken "a 'hard look' at them, and "made a 'reasoned elaboration of the basis for its | 1 | 1 |
Silvercup Studios, Inc. v. Power Authoritygreen1 sentence2010“Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is ‘may,’ there is a relatively.low threshold for the preparation of an EIS” (Matter of Omni Partners v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440, 442 [1997]; see Matter of UPROSE v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 603, 608 [2001]; Matter of Silvercup Studios v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 598, 600 [2001]; Matter of Farrington Close Condominium Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623, 624 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
UPROSE v. Power Authoritygreen1 sentence2010“Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is ‘may,’ there is a relatively.low threshold for the preparation of an EIS” (Matter of Omni Partners v County of Nassau, 237 AD2d 440, 442 [1997]; see Matter of UPROSE v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 603, 608 [2001]; Matter of Silvercup Studios v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 285 AD2d 598, 600 [2001]; Matter of Farrington Close Condominium Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623, 624 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
Akpan v. Kochgreen1 sentence2010The scope of judicial review of a lead agency’s threshold SEQRA determination is limited to whether the determination was “made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]; see Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570 [1990]; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 363 [1986]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. Brookhaven Town Planning Board
green
2 sentences1997It is well settled that because the operative word triggering the requirement of an EIS is 'may’, there is a 'relatively low threshold for impact statements’ (Matter of Farrington Close Condominium, Bd. of Mgrs. v Incorporated Vil. of Southampton, 205 AD2d 623 ; see also, Matter of Group For The S. Fork v Wines [ 190 AD2d 794 ]; Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd. [ 137 AD2d 601 ]; Chinese Staff & Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 NY2d 359, 364-365 ). 1996"Because the operative word triggering the requirement of an [environmental impact statement] is 'may’, 'there is a relatively low threshold’ ” for the preparation of such statements (Matter of Holmes v Brookhaven Town Planning Bd., 137 AD2d 601, 603 , citing H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. | 3 | 1994–1997 |
Kahn v. Pasnik
green
2 sentences2001Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 ; Matter of Kahn v Pasnik, 231 AD2d 568, 569 ; affd 90 NY2d 569 ). 2001Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397; Matter of Kahn v Pasnik, 231 AD2d 568, 569 , affd 90 NY2d 569 ). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Kahn v. Pasnik
neutral
2 sentences2001Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 ; Matter of Kahn v Pasnik, 231 AD2d 568, 569 ; affd 90 NY2d 569 ). 2001Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397; Matter of Kahn v Pasnik, 231 AD2d 568, 569 , affd 90 NY2d 569 ). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Development Corp.
green
2 sentences1996Corp., 69 AD2d 222, 232 ), and they should be required when the action may fairly be said to have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment (H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. 1988Corp., 69 AD2d 222, 232 ). | 2 | 1988–1996 |
Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Planning Board
green
2 sentences2025On the other hand, although an EIS is presumptively required for type I actions (see, Matter of Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome , 183 AD2d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 1992]), it is not a per se requirement ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of Town of Guilderland , 217 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 1995]] lv. denied 87 NY2d 803 [1995]) However, if an agency issues a negative declaration, eliminating the need for an EIS, it can only do so after it has "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern," taken "a 'hard look' at them, and "made a 'reasoned elaboration of the basis for its 2025On the other hand, although an EIS is presumptively required for type I actions (see, Matter of Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome , 183 AD2d 1013, 1014 [3d Dept 1992]), it is not a per se requirement ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd. of Town of Guilderland , 217 AD2d 767 [3d Dept 1995]] lv. denied 87 NY2d 803 [1995]) However, if an agency issues a negative declaration, eliminating the need for an EIS, it can only do so after it has "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern," taken "a 'hard look' at them, and "made a 'reasoned elaboration of the basis for its | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Merson v. McNally
green
1 sentence1997Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 397 ; Matter of West Branch Conservation Assn. v Planning Bd., 207 AD2d 837, 838-839 ; Matter of Merson v McNally, 227 AD2d 487 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |