From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of United Petroleum Association v. Williams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 4, 1985
481 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1985)

Summary

In United Petroleum, the agency followed the procedures mandated by SEQRA and reached the rational conclusion, supported by the record, that the proposed action would have no significant impact on the environment, obviating the need for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

Summary of this case from Inland Vale Farm Co. v. Stergianopoulos

Opinion

Argued April 22, 1985

Decided June 4, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, John G. Connor, J.

G.S. Peter Bergen and Thomas E. Mark for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Francis J. Keehan, Robert Hermann, Peter H. Schiff and James A. Sevinsky of counsel), for respondent.

Usher Fogel and Emilio Petroccione for Empire State Petroleum Association, Inc., amicus curiae.


Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice John T. Casey at the Appellate Division ( 102 A.D.2d 491).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER. Taking no part: Judge TITONE.


Summaries of

Matter of United Petroleum Association v. Williams

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 4, 1985
481 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1985)

In United Petroleum, the agency followed the procedures mandated by SEQRA and reached the rational conclusion, supported by the record, that the proposed action would have no significant impact on the environment, obviating the need for preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

Summary of this case from Inland Vale Farm Co. v. Stergianopoulos
Case details for

Matter of United Petroleum Association v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of UNITED PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. HENRY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 4, 1985

Citations

481 N.E.2d 567 (N.Y. 1985)
481 N.E.2d 567
492 N.Y.S.2d 27

Citing Cases

Whibco, Inc. v. Round Lake

It should be noted that, unlike the regulations quoted, ECL 8-0105 (4) does not define an action in terms of…

Matter of Serv. Station v. N.Y. State Dept

It has no duty to discuss speculative possibilities (see, Natural Resources Defense Council v Morton, 458…