Opinion
225 A.D.2d 1036 639 N.Y.S.2d 627 Matter of Edward R. HALLENBECK, Jr., Individually and as Supervisor and ON BEHALF OF the TOWN OF VAN BUREN, Appellant, v. ONONDAGA COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY AGENCY, Respondent. Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department March 8, 1996.
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mordue, J.--CPLR art. 78.
Davoli, McMahons&sKublick, P.C. by Jan Kublick, Syracuse, for Appellant.
Grossman, Kinney, Dwyer and Harrigan, P.C. by James Dwyer, East Syracuse, for Respondent.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN and BOEHM, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to compel respondent, Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA), to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). OCRRA is the "lead agency" for the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in the development of a County landfill site (see, 6 NYCRR 617.6[b] ). In determining the sufficiency of a SEQRA review, the court's role is limited to whether "the agency has identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, taken a 'hard look' at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination" (Matter of Neville v. Koch, 79 N.Y.2d 416, 424-425, 583 N.Y.S.2d 802, 593 N.E.2d 256; see, e.g., H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.2d 222, 232, 418 N.Y.S.2d 827). If the agency has reached its determination in some reasonable fashion, "the court is not permitted to second-guess the agency's choice" (Matter of Schiff v. Board of Estimate, 122 A.D.2d 57, 59, 504 N.Y.S.2d 215, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 604, 513 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 505 N.E.2d 626; see, 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). We conclude that OCRRA "took the requisite 'hard look' at the possible and probable environmental effects of the proposed landfill" (Residents of Bergen Believe in Envt.s&s Democracy v. County of Monroe, 159 A.D.2d 81, 84, 558 N.Y.S.2d 422, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 936, 563 N.Y.S.2d 65, 564 N.E.2d 675, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 803, 568 N.Y.S.2d 15, 569 N.E.2d 874; see, Matter of Schodack Concerned Citizens v. Town Bd., 148 A.D.2d 130, 134-135, 544 N.Y.S.2d 49, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 701, 551 N.Y.S.2d 905, 551 N.E.2d 106) and that petitioner did not present new information to compel the preparation of a SEIS (see, 6 NYCRR 617.8[g]; cf., Glen Head--Glenwood Landing Civic Council v. Town of Oyster Bay, 88 A.D.2d 484, 453 N.Y.S.2d 732).
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.