Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
120511 FCRC Motion for Leave to Appeal

120511 FCRC Motion for Leave to Appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,068|Likes:
Published by AYReport

More info:

Published by: AYReport on May 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKIn the Matter of the Application ofDEVELOP DON'T DESTROY (BROOKLYN), INC., et al.,
Petitioners-Respondents,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules
- against -
EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Respondents-Appellants.
In the Matter of the Application ofPROSPECT HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOP-MENT COUNCIL, INC., et al.,
Petitioners-Respondents,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice
Law and Rules
- against -
EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., :
Respondents-Appellants.
MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL OF RESPONDENT-
APPELLANT FOREST CITY RATNER COMPANIES LLC
 
Table of Contents
Jurisdiction
Questions PresentedStatement of Why
Page
Notice of Motion
 
Procedural History
 
for Review
 
These Cases Merit Review by This Court
 
1
24
5
7
A.
Statement of Facts
 
11
1.
The 2006 Approvals
 
11
2.
Litigations Challenging the 2006 Approvals
 
12
3.
The 2009 Modifications
 
13
4.
The "Master Closing" and Work on the Project
 
15
5.
Litigations Challenging the 2009 Project Approvals
17
6.
The March and November 2010 Decisions
 
18
7.
ESDC's Compliance With the Remand Order
 
19
8.
The Supplemental Petitions
 
21
9.
Supreme Court's Final Decision
 
21
10.
The Appellate Division's Decision
 
22
B.
Legal Argument: These Cases Merit Review by This Court
24
1.Requiring a New Environmental Review Solely Because ofDelay in Project Implementation Is Unprecedented
24
2.The Lower Courts' Decisions Would Fundamentally ChangeSEQRA Compliance Due to the Courts' UnprecedentedJustifications for Their Impermissible Substitution of TheirOwn Judgment for That of ESDC
 
28
 
Table of Contents
Jurisdiction
Questions PresentedStatement of Why
Page
Notice of Motion
 
Procedural History
 
for Review
 
These Cases Merit Review by This Court
 
1
24
5
7
A.
Statement of Facts
 
11
1.
The 2006 Approvals
 
11
2.
Litigations Challenging the 2006 Approvals
 
12
3.
The 2009 Modifications
 
13
4.
The "Master Closing" and Work on the Project
 
15
5.
Litigations Challenging the 2009 Project Approvals
17
6.
The March and November 2010 Decisions
 
18
7.
ESDC's Compliance With the Remand Order
 
19
8.
The Supplemental Petitions
 
21
9.
Supreme Court's Final Decision
 
21
10.
The Appellate Division's Decision
 
22
B.
Legal Argument: These Cases Merit Review by This Court
24
1.Requiring a New Environmental Review Solely Because ofDelay in Project Implementation Is Unprecedented
24
2.The Lower Courts' Decisions Would Fundamentally ChangeSEQRA Compliance Due to the Courts' UnprecedentedJustifications for Their Impermissible Substitution of TheirOwn Judgment for That of ESDC
 
28

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->