April 2, 2014
Appellate Division Rules Against Petitioners in Painted
The decision of the Appellate Division Fourth
Department in Sierra Club v. Painted Post, 115 A.D.3d 1310 (4th Dep't 2014), was issued on March 28, 2014. Unlike the
trial court, the appeals court determined that Petitioner John
Marvin did not have standing. The court said “Marvin will not suffer noise impacts ‘different in kind or degree from the public at large.” The court also determined that the organizational petitioners did not have standing,
stating “Here, . . . , because 'none of the individual petitioners alleges a unique, direct
environmental injury,' none of the organizational petitioners can
be found to have standing.” Having determined that none of petitioners had standing, the appeals court reversed
the judgment of the trial court, and granted the motion of respondents
Village of Painted Post, Painted Post Development, LLC, and SWEPI,
LP to dismiss the petition.
The case challenged the failure of the Village
to conduct a review under the state environmental quality review
act (SEQRA) of the bulk water sale agreement made by the Village
to sell up to 1.4 MGD from the Village water system to SWEPI, LP,
an affiliate of Royal Dutch Shell for gas drilling in Pennsylvania.
I am working with attorney Richard J. Lippes from Buffalo to represent
the petitioners. The papers in the case are posted here.
Posted by Rachel Treichler on 04/02/14, updated
About NY Water Law
New York Water
Law covers legal developments relating to water usage in New York
and in jurisdictions that may be influential in New York. The author,
Rachel Treichler, practices law in the Finger Lakes region.
Search NY Water Law
Enter search terms:
Enter email address to receive notices of new
content delivered by FeedBurner:
Index of Posts
Water Law Links