Preview:

[*1]


Decided on June 9, 2008
Supreme Court, Suffolk County

2001-16830
Weber Law Group, LLP Attorneys for Petitioners 201 North Service Road, Suite 300 Melville, New York 11747 Berkman Henoch Peterson & Peddy, PC Attorneys for Respondent TOWN OF OYSTER BAY 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, New York 11501 Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondents 900 Merrick Road East Meadow, New York 11554 Goldstein & Avurtine, Esqs Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondents 575 Underhill Boulevard Syosset, New York 11791 Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, J.
It is, ORDERED, that the application of Petitioners (008), is hereby granted to the extent set forth herein below; and the application of Respondent (009), is hereby denied in all respects.
Petitioners move this Court (008) for an Order directing Respondent to adopt the Town Environmental Quality Review Commission's July 25, 2000 SEQRA Findings, pursuant to this Court's July 8, 2002 Decision and Order, and the Appellate Division, Second Department's March 3, 2003 Decision and Order, and issue to Petitioners a special use permit and site plan approval for its proposed shopping mall.
Respondent moves this Court (009) for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 7804[f]:
1.Denying Petitioners' purported Motion, in the language of Respondent's Counsel "apparently brought pursuant to CPLR Rule 3212 for summary judgment compelling and" directing Respondent to issue a special use permit and approve Petitioners' proposed site plan; and
2.Granting judgment to Respondent summarily dismissing and denying this Article 78 proceeding, upon the grounds that: [*2]
a.The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the non-final deliberations of Respondent as lead agency under SEQRA;
b.In as much as Petitioners have admittedly failed to comply with Respondent's demand for a letter of conversion, revised site plans and a Supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), Petitioners' claim is not ripe, and they have not exhausted their remedies within the primary jurisdiction of Respondent, which has yet to reach a final determination. The Court has no authority, in violation of the separation of powers, to interpose its own judgment for the discretionary will of Respondent, which has yet to complete its SEQRA deliberations, reach a final determination and render its SEQRA statement of Findings, as required by law.
HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS:
In the interests of brevity, and in order to curtail further waste of judicial resources, the facts as set forth in the decision of Justice James M. Catterson, dated July 8, 2002 (the 2002 Decision), an objective source, are hereby incorporated by reference.
The June 11, 2007 Decision of the undersigned (the 2007 Decision) directed that this matter be re

Download 2008_51176.pdf

New York Law