Search for: "Matter of New York State Urban Dev. Corp."
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2009, 9:11 am
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:05 pm
An appellate division court in New York issued its opinion today in Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 7:43 am
New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). [read post]
8 Mar 2009, 3:33 am
Urban Dev. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 10:33 am
New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:54 am
In Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:54 am
In Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 12:43 pm
Urban Dev. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:01 am
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am
The Court further found the Short Form Environmental Assessment undertaken by the Village Board, in purported accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and prior to their adoption of the demapping and discontinuance resolution, to be wholefully inadequate and not meeting the “hard look” and “reasoned elaboration” standards set forth in Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 10:53 am
The Court further found the Short Form Environmental Assessment undertaken by the Village Board, in purported accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and prior to their adoption of the demapping and discontinuance resolution, to be wholefully inadequate and not meeting the “hard look” and “reasoned elaboration” standards set forth in Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
20 May 2011, 11:07 am
Corp. (13 NY3d 511 [2009]) and Matter of Kaur v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 12:00 pm
New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 7:57 am
Although it is unclear precisely what standard the Appellate Division applied, it cited its prior decision in Tapp v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 6:23 am
“Courts may review the record to determine whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination (see Matter of Chinese Staff & Workers’ Assn. v Burden, 19 NY3d 922, 924; Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 6:23 am
“Courts may review the record to determine whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination (see Matter of Chinese Staff & Workers’ Assn. v Burden, 19 NY3d 922, 924; Akpan v Koch, 75 NY2d 561, 570; Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 10:30 am
" # # # Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 11:59 am
Urban Dev. [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
This paper presents a survey of federal and state court decisions on these two questions, hoping to offer some guidance to practitioners. [read post]
