New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Pizzuti v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 29, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 1039; 494 N.E.2d 1385; 503 N.Y.S.2d 720; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 18686

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

E 13th St Cmty. v. Udc (N.Y. 1994)
East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp. (N.Y. 1994)
West 41st Street Realty LLC v. New York State Urban Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Town of Riga v. County of Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Niagara Falls Sightseeing By Sheridan, Inc. v. Penn Advertising, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Waldo's, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City (N.Y. 1989)
Greenwich Associates v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
J.F. O'Healy Construction Co. v. Town of Islip (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
UAH-Braendly Hydro Associates v. RKDK Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Neptune Associates, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner brought this proceeding directly in the Appellate Division, pursuant to EDPL article 2, to challenge the taking of a 48-foot by 160-foot portion of his real property located in Bethpage, Long Island. The condemnation was made by respondent in connection with its project to electrify the main line of the Long Island Rail Road from Hicksville to Ronkonkoma. Insofar as here pertinent, the petition alleges that there has been a failure to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which, it is urged, deprives respondent of its right to condemn the property.

We agree with the Appellate Division, which confirmed the determination, that compliance with SEQRA is not subject to judicial review in a proceeding brought pursuant to EDPL 207. Although SEQRA and EDPL overlap in requiring that environmental effects be identified, they contemplate different procedures for judicial review (Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 418). By its terms, *1041EDPL 207 expressly limits the scope of review to whether the proceeding was constitutional or within the agency’s jurisdiction; whether the agency made its determination and findings in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2; and whether "a public use, benefit or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition” (EDPL 207 [C] [4]). Whether there has been compliance with SEQRA can be judicially reviewed only in a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court (see, Sandpiper Constr. Co. v Siegel, 97 AD2d 539, lv denied 61 NY2d 608).

Petitioner also seeks review of a judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County, which, in a separate proceeding, granted respondent permission to file an acquisition map. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, CPLR 5501 (a) does not permit this court to review orders and judgments rendered in different, though related, actions and proceedings.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.