Opinion
CA 03-01341.
February 11, 2004.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered March 18, 2003. The judgment, inter alia, dismissed the petition to review respondent's determination adopting the 2001 Seneca Park Zoo Development Plan and accepting the State Environmental Quality Review Findings Statement.
BANSBACH, ZOGHLIN WAHL, P.C., ROCHESTER (MINDY L. ZOGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS.
REMINGTON, GIFFORD, WILLIAMS COLICCHIO, LLP, ROCHESTER (ROBERT B. KOEGEL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Before: PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition challenging respondent's adoption of the 2001 Seneca Park Zoo Development Plan (Zoo Plan) and respondent's acceptance of the State Environmental Quality Review Findings Statement (Findings Statement) prepared in connection with the Zoo Plan. The court properly concluded that respondent's determination adopting the Zoo Plan and accepting the Findings Statement complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ([SEQRA] ECL art 8). The record establishes that respondent, as lead 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" adopting the Zoo Plan ( Matter of Jackson v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417). Respondent identified and addressed each of the areas of concern raised by petitioners, giving "due consideration to pertinent environmental factors" ( Akpan v. Koch, 75 N.Y.2d 561, 571). Further, contrary to petitioners' contention, respondent considered "a reasonable range of alternatives" before adopting the Zoo Plan ( Matter of Town of Dryden v. Tompkins County Bd. of Representatives, 78 N.Y.2d 331, 334; see Matter of Coalition for Responsible Dev. in Golden Bridge v. Town Planning Bd. of Town of Lewisboro, 221 A.D.2d 626), and satisfied its obligation under SEQRA to "act and choose alternatives which, consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize or avoid environmental effects" (8-0109[1]).