From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fine Associates v. Board of Trustees of Elmsford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 3, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners' contention that the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Elmsford (hereinafter the Board) violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) (hereinafter SEQRA), is without merit. The Board, as lead agency, took the requisite hard look at the relevant environmental concerns involving the proposed zoning amendment and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its finding that the rezoning action would have no significant environmental effects ( see, Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 571; 6 NYCRR 617.6 [g] [2]; Matter of Golden Triangle Assocs. v. Town Bd., 185 A.D.2d 617). All of the potential environmental impacts of the rezoning, including those raised by the petitioners, were considered by the Board prior to issuance of the negative declaration ( see, ECL 8-0109; Matter of Golden Triangle Assocs. v. Town Bd., supra, at 618).

Although the Board tacitly concedes that the initial June 15, 1992, session of the public hearing was held on 9 days notice instead of the required 10, the Board gave proper notice of the December 7, 1992, session, wherein the Board's consultants submitted the Revised Environmental Assessment Form. Moreover, even if the notice were to be deemed defective, such a procedural deficiency would not, by itself, invalidate the actions of the Board at that meeting ( see, e.g., Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v Meyer, 200 A.D.2d 743; Matter of Fairris v. Town of Washington Planning Bd., 167 A.D.2d 368; Matter of Velez v. Board of Appeals, 147 A.D.2d 648, 649; Matter of Gaona v. Town of Huntington Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 106 A.D.2d 638, 640).

We have considered the petitioners' remaining contention and find it to be without merit ( see, Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 N.Y.2d 121). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fine Associates v. Board of Trustees of Elmsford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Fine Associates v. Board of Trustees of Elmsford

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FINE ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 3, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
643 N.Y.S.2d 643

Citing Cases

Hoosick Falls v. Eastern Rensselaer Cnty Solid Waste

With respect to the publication, it would appear that publication was not timely. The court is mindful that…

Douglaston Civic Ass'n v. City of N.Y.

As a threshold matter, petitioners generally cannot raise "the legal rights of another" ( Society of Plastics…