IN RE: LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS SOCIETY (2002)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS SOCIETY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, et al., Respondents.

Decided: April 15, 2002

NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN and LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.

Regina Seltzer, Bellport, N.Y., for appellants. Eric Bregman, Town Attorney, East Hampton, N.Y., and Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert S. Davis and Philip E. Karmel of counsel), for respondents Town Board of Town of East Hampton, Town Planning Board of Town of East Hampton, and Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of East Hampton (one brief filed). David J. Gilmartin, Jr., Town Attorney, Southampton, N.Y. (Kim Judd of counsel), for respondents Town Board of Town of Southampton, Town Planning Board of Town of Southampton, and Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Southampton. Robert J. Cimino, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Derrick J. Robinson and Jennifer B. Kohn of counsel), for respondent Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and James M. Tierney of counsel), for State of New York, amicus curiae.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review determinations of the respondent municipalities dated April 12, 2000, and April 26, 2000, granting approvals for sundry unrelated developments in Suffolk County, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 8, 2000, which, among other things, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The individual petitioners did not meet their burden of establishing their standing to sue, since they failed to indicate how the proposed land uses would cause them an injury in fact, different from that suffered by the public at large, within the zone of interest that the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA; ECL art. 8), is intended to protect (see Society of the Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 773-774, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034; Matter of Rediker v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Philipstown, 280 A.D.2d 548, 721 N.Y.S.2d 77; Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 213 A.D.2d 484, 623 N.Y.S.2d 613). The organizational petitioners similarly lack standing, since they have failed to demonstrate that one or more of their individual members would have standing to sue (see Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, supra ).

The petitioners' remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination.

The instant case demonstrates the legal barriers to securing any cumulative impact review of development in the Long Island Pine Barrens. The petitioners' frustration with the legal process is understandable. However, it is the province of the Legislature to fashion a solution to this problem (see Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 N.Y.2d 500, 515, 591 N.Y.S.2d 982, 606 N.E.2d 1373).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law