Opinion
07-07-2016
In re Raymond FINN, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale (E. Christopher Murray of counsel), for appellants. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondents.
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale (E. Christopher Murray of counsel), for appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered November 9, 2015, denying the petition seeking to, among other things, annul a negative declaration, dated June 12, 2014, issued by respondent New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) regarding a proposed shelter (the project), and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
DHS' determination was not arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by the evidence (see Matter of Riverkeeper Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 N.Y.3d 219, 232, 851 N.Y.S.2d 76, 881 N.E.2d 172 [2007] ). DHS took the requisite “hard look” at the project's anticipated adverse environmental impacts, and provided a “reasoned elaboration” for the negative declaration (id. at 231–232, 851 N.Y.S.2d 76, 881 N.E.2d 172, quoting Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417, 503 N.Y.S.2d 298, 494 N.E.2d 429 [1986] ).
In preparing the environmental assessment statement (EAS) undergirding the negative declaration, DHS properly adhered to the “accepted methodology” set forth in the City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (Matter of Chinese Staff & Workers' Assn. v. Burden, 88 A.D.3d 425, 429, 932 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2011], affd. 19 N.Y.3d 922, 950 N.Y.S.2d 503, 973 N.E.2d 1277 [2012] ). DHS did not delegate its review responsibilities to the environmental consulting firm it properly retained to assist it with the preparation of the EAS (see 6 NYCRR 617.14 [c]; Matter of King v. Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 N.Y.2d 341, 350 n. *, 653 N.Y.S.2d 233, 675 N.E.2d 1185 [1996] ).
We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ANDRIAS, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ., concur.