April 2, 2014Appellate Division Rules Against Petitioners in Painted Post CaseThe 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 04/05/16.
Copyright 2021, Rachel Treichler
|
|
