Niebauer v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 07 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 14313,Case No. 2020–03465,Index No. 154890/19 |
| Parties | Michael N. NIEBAUER, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents/Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
198 A.D.3d 441
152 N.Y.S.3d 568 (Mem)
Michael N. NIEBAUER, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents/Defendants–Respondents.
14313
Index No. 154890/19
Case No. 2020–03465
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED October 7, 2021
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., Uniondale (E. Christopher Murray of counsel), for appellants.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Kate Fletcher of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Gonza´lez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered August 3, 2020, which, in this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory and injunctive relief, granted defendants/respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition/complaint to the extent of
denying the vacatur of the negative declaration, and adjudged and declared that the negative declaration did not
violate the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and was not arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly found that the City did not fail to comply with SEQRA requirements by adopting the plan contained in its February 2017 report entitled "Turning the Tide on Homelessness in New York City" without first conducting any environmental review of that plan, and that the City properly complied with SEQRA by conducting an environmental review of the College Park shelter project, which did not constitute improper segmentation (see Housing Justice Campaign v. Koch, 164 A.D.2d 656, 565 N.Y.S.2d 472 [1st Dept. 1991], lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 858, 575 N.Y.S.2d 454, 580 N.E.2d 1057 [1991] ; see also Matter of Sandora v. City of New York, 186 A.D.3d 1225, 130 N.Y.S.3d 61 [2d Dept. 2020] ).
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tamara B. v. St. Dominic's Home (In re Heaven Gabriella B.)
...unanimously affirmed, without costs.Family Court correctly determined that reasonable efforts by 198 A.D.3d 439 petitioner to return 152 N.Y.S.3d 568 the child to respondent's home were no longer required ( Family Court Act § 1039–b[a] ). Petitioner demonstrated that respondent's parental r......
- Jobe v. Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC