Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
The IAS court properly rejected petitioner's challenges to the passage of Local Laws, 1989, No. 89. Since petitioner's objections to Local Law No. 89 mainly concern the law's adverse economic impact on petitioner, and not its environmental impact, petitioner lacks standing to assert a claim based on the State Environmental Quality Review Act ([SEQRA] ECL art 8; Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428, 433). To the extent petitioner raises an issue of possible environmental impact on Central Park, these concerns are not "specific" to petitioner or "`different in kind and degree from the community generally'" (supra, at 433). In any case, SEQRA was unnecessary since Local Law No. 89 falls under the State regulation exempting certain types of actions from environmental review. (ECL 8-0113 [c] [ii]; 6 NYCRR 617.13 [d] [15]; see, Huggins v City of New York, 126 Misc.2d 908, 912-913.) Furthermore, since there is a rational basis for respondents' decision that Local Law No. 89 would not have a significant effect on the environment, that finding may not be disturbed.
Equally meritless is petitioner's contention that Local Law No. 89 should be voided because of respondents' violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Public Officers Law. Respondents' unintentional failure to turn over portions of the hearing testimony did not undermine petitioner's ability to seek judicial review so as to constitute "good cause" for annulling the legislation (Public Officers Law [Open Meetings Law] § 107 [1]; see, Matter of New York Univ. v Whalen, 46 N.Y.2d 734).
Finally, since the purpose of Local Law No. 89 is to regulate horse-drawn carriages which, as vehicles using the public streets, are clearly within the purview of the Committee on Transportation, the Council's assignment of Local Law No. 89 to that Committee was not jurisdictionally improper (NY City Charter § 41; Rules of Council, art VII, ch 7.00-a). Nor is Local Law No. 89 improper for embracing more than one subject (NY Const, art III, § 15; Municipal Home Rule Law § 20; N Y City Charter § 36).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.