Cohalan v. Carey

• Decision Date: 13 July 1982
• Citation: 452 N.Y.S.2d 639,88 A.D.2d 77
• Parties: In the Matter of Peter F. COHALAN, et al., Respondents, v. Hugh L. CAREY, et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 639

452 N.Y.S.2d 639

88 A.D.2d 77

In the Matter of Peter F. COHALAN, et al., Respondents, v. Hugh L. CAREY, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 13, 1982.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (John G. Proudfit and Barbara B. Butler, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel; Ramon J. Rodriguez, Associate Commissioner and Chief Counsel, New York State Dept. of Correctional Services, New York City), for appellants.

Twomey, Latham & Shea, Riverhead (John F. Shea, III, Stephen B. Latham, Riverhead, and Thomas Spota, of counsel; Guy Germano, Deputy Town Atty., Twomey, Latham and Shea, Islip), for respondents.

Before MOLLEN, P. J., and TITONE, MANGANO, WEINSTEIN and NIEHOFF, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns the proposed conversion of three buildings on the grounds of the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center into a medium security prison facility. Pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (ECL 8-0101 et seq.) the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) issued a negative declaration and environmental assessment form (EAF) determining that:

"the transfer to and reutilization of buildings 81, 82 and 83 of the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center for use by the Department as a medium security facility will not have a significant effect on the environment."

In this proceeding, petitioners seek to set aside the decision to partially convert the psychiatric facility to a prison, on the grounds, inter alia, that appellants acted in violation of SEQRA by failing to properly consider the potential impact of such action upon the surrounding communities in general, and the immediate patient community in particular.

In granting the instant application for a preliminary injunction pending final resolution of the proceeding, Special Term found that petitioners had established the requisites for such relief: a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury absent the injunction and equities balanced in petitioners' favor.

The basic purpose of SEQRA is to declare a State policy to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources (ECL 8-0101; Matter of Rye Town/King Civic Ass'n v. Town of Rye, 82 A.D.2d 474, 442 N.Y.S.2d 67, app. dsmd. 55 N.Y.2d 747).

In furtherance of this policy, SEQRA mandates that all State and local agencies, such as DOCS (ECL 8-0105, subds. 1, 2 and 3), prepare or cause to be prepared, an environmental impact statement (EIS) on any action they propose or approve "which may have a significant effect on the environment" (ECL 8-0109, subd. 2). Agencies are directed to make an initial determination, as early as possible, as to whether an EIS needs to be prepared in relation to a proposed action (ECL 8-0109, subd. 4).

Although there are no specific guidelines in the statutes for determining whether a particular agency action "may have a significant effect on the environment", the regulations of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, adopted pursuant to ECL 8-0113, set forth certain criteria which are considered "indicators of significant effects on the environment" (6 NYCRR 617.11). Included among those criteria are "the creation of a material conflict with a community's existing plans or goals as officially approved or adopted" (6 NYCRR 617.11), and "the creation of a hazard to human health or safety" (6 NYCRR 617.11).

In order to support a negative declaration that the project will have no significant impact on the environment (such as in the instant case), an agency must show that

"it identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a 'hard look' at them (Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410, n.21 Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm. v. United States Postal Serv. 487 F.2d 1029, 1040) and made a 'reasoned elaboration' of the basis for its determination (City of Rochester v. United States Postal Serv. 541 F.2d 967, 973)." (H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., supra, 69 A.D.2d p. 232, 418 N.Y.S.2d 827.)

Contrary to the finding of Special Term, we find that DOCS' negative declaration and EAF indicate that it made a thorough investigation of the problems involved and reasonably exercised its discretion in determining that its proposed action would have no significant impact on the environment (see H.O.M.E.S. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.2d 222, 231, 418 N.Y.S.2d 827).

The negative declaration states:

"In its evaluation the Department has identified no significant adverse impact on the environment (as that term is defined by SEQR and its implementing regulations) as indicated by the attached environmental assessment."

In the accompanying EAF, considerable attention was devoted to the socio-economic impact of the proposed action upon the surrounding communities. Further, in relation to the specific question of the effect upon human health and safety, the EAF stated:

"In examining this aspect of the contemplated action, we focus on the security of the facility and the potential for inmate escape and/or disturbance. The paramount concern of local residents will be the perceived threat to their own personal safety, as well as that of neighbors and patients at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, resulting from close proximity to a medium security correctional facility...