MATTER OF HARLEM VALLEY UNITED COALITION, INC. v. Hall

430 N.E.2d 909, 54 N.Y.2d 977
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 27, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 430 N.E.2d 909 (MATTER OF HARLEM VALLEY UNITED COALITION, INC. v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
MATTER OF HARLEM VALLEY UNITED COALITION, INC. v. Hall, 430 N.E.2d 909, 54 N.Y.2d 977 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinion

54 N.Y.2d 977 (1981)

In the Matter of Harlem Valley United Coalition, Inc., et al., Appellants,
v.
Frank A. Hall, as Director of the Division for Youth of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued September 17, 1981.
Decided October 27, 1981.

James D. Benson and Donald Cappillino for appellants.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Francis J. Keehan, Jeremiah Jochnowitz and James A. Sevinsky of counsel), for respondents.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

*979MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of the court (80 AD2d 851). We note, additionally, that the project for establishment of a secure juvenile facility was authorized pursuant to legislative authority granted to the Division for Youth. The establishment of such a facility will, in most instances, inherently and inescapably pose some community *980 problems wherever it may be geographically located. In any challenge to such an agency's declaration of environmental nonsignificance in regard to such a facility, judicial focus must be on whether the agency failed to consider substantial disadvantages peculiar to a particular location or that the exposure of the community may not be reduced to reasonable proportions by the employment of other means to complete the project at the proposed location. There is no substantial proof of either in this record.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Public Service Commission
194 Misc. 2d 467 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services
573 N.E.2d 562 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
Southampton Ass'n v. Planning Board
109 A.D.2d 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Manes v. Simpson
108 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Gerges v. Koch
101 A.D.2d 201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
MATTER OF TOWN OF YORKTOWN v. New York State Dep't of Mental Hygiene
453 N.E.2d 1254 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
Cohalan v. Carey
88 A.D.2d 77 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Association for Development of a Healthy Oneonta Community, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick
87 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 N.E.2d 909, 54 N.Y.2d 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-harlem-valley-united-coalition-inc-v-hall-ny-1981.