From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Harlem Valley United Coalition v. Hall

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 27, 1981
430 N.E.2d 909 (N.Y. 1981)

Opinion

Argued September 17, 1981

Decided October 27, 1981

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOSEPH D. QUINN, JR., J.

James D. Benson and Donald Cappillino for appellants.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Francis J. Keehan, Jeremiah Jochnowitz and James A. Sevinsky of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of the court ( 80 A.D.2d 851). We note, additionally, that the project for establishment of a secure juvenile facility was authorized pursuant to legislative authority granted to the Division for Youth. The establishment of such a facility will, in most instances, inherently and inescapably pose some community problems wherever it may be geographically located. In any challenge to such an agency's declaration of environmental nonsignificance in regard to such a facility, judicial focus must be on whether the agency failed to consider substantial disadvantages peculiar to a particular location or that the exposure of the community may not be reduced to reasonable proportions by the employment of other means to complete the project at the proposed location. There is no substantial proof of either in this record.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Harlem Valley United Coalition v. Hall

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 27, 1981
430 N.E.2d 909 (N.Y. 1981)
Case details for

Matter of Harlem Valley United Coalition v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HARLEM VALLEY UNITED COALITION, INC., et al., Appellants…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 27, 1981

Citations

430 N.E.2d 909 (N.Y. 1981)
430 N.E.2d 909
446 N.Y.S.2d 33

Citing Cases

Southampton v. Planning Bd.

sonably exercised its discretion in issuing a declaration that the proposed subdivision would have no…

NYS ELEC. & GAS CORP. v. PSC

The standard of review in such a proceeding is whether the agency determination was arbitrary and capricious…