New York Law Watch
Environmental, Land Use and Eminent Domain
Environmental review, land-use approvals and government acquisition of property are grouped here, including disputes over parks, zoning and public projects.
For Environmental, Land Use and Eminent Domain, Law Watch lists 16 indexable decisions dated July 24, 2026 to November 12, 2026 across 9 decision weeks.
19 decision records: 16 meet the substance floor; 3 records are held from search listings.
The records below come from 4 courts and include both primary and secondary area classifications.
Browse by year
Recent decisions
- Matter of Zero Waste Ithaca v Ithaca City Planning & Dev. Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 06600
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the planning board’s issuance of a negative declaration under SEQRA was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the board adequately identified pertinent areas of environmental concern and took a hard look at the evidence regarding synthetic turf risks.
- Matter of Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation2026 NY Slip Op 06497
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, holding that the Master Plan and Unit Management Plan do not impose a nondiscretionary duty on the Department of Environmental Conservation to conduct a carrying capacity study. Because the relevant provisions are aspirational rather than mandatory, mandamus relief is unavailable to compel the agency’s exercise of professional judgment.
- Matter of 99 Wash. LD Holdings, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Suffern2026 NY Slip Op 06433
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition as time-barred because the proceeding was commenced more than 30 days after the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision was filed with the village clerk. The court held that the 30-day statute of limitations under Village Law § 7-712-c(1) applied, rendering the petition untimely.
- Matter of Bruck v Town of Rochester Planning Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 06370
The Planning Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting site plan approval for a modified project because the changes were in substantial conformance with the original conceptual plan. The Board was authorized to adopt the Town Board’s parking determinations without referring the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals or Code Enforcement Officer.
- Seneca Lake Guardian, Inc. v Seneca Meadows, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06367
The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Department of Environmental Conservation, finding that the Green Amendment does not impose a ministerial duty to enforce regulations and that the request for an injunction was not ripe. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the public nuisance claim due to a lack of special injury but allowed the private nuisance claim to proceed.
- City of New York v Arlene M. Tropp 2002 Revocable Trust2026 NY Slip Op 06090
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding zoning compliance and the applicability of reasonable accommodation claims. The court found that the defendants’ disability-based arguments did not address all alleged violations and failed to demonstrate the absence of material facts regarding selective enforcement.
- Matter of VN Property, Inc. v Byrne2026 NY Slip Op 05961
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was supported by a rational basis and the record. The court determined that the board properly applied the statutory balancing test and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously.
- Matter of Hunter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Islip2026 NY Slip Op 05953
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition, finding that the Zoning Board of Appeals’ denial of area variances was not arbitrary or capricious. The court determined that the Board properly applied the required balancing test and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Board reached a different result on essentially the same facts as a prior permit.