Global Companies LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 155 A.D.3d 93

Global Companies LLC operated a 63-acre petroleum storage/transfer facility in Albany and applied in June 2013 to modify its Title V air permit to expand crude oil storage and add gas-fired boilers.
DEC issued a Notice of Complete Application (NOCA) in November 2013, designated itself SEQRA lead agency, and issued a negative declaration; an extended public comment period produced ~19,000 comments.
The EPA questioned Global’s emissions calculations and new information and comments emerged during review, including changes to project emissions and incomplete modeling for hydrogen sulfide.
In May 2015 DEC rescinded the NOCA and announced intent to rescind the negative SEQRA declaration, citing substantial new information and unreviewed project changes.
Global sued under CPLR article 78 and for declaratory relief seeking (inter alia) an order compelling DEC to decide the permit and annulling the rescission; neighboring residents and environmental groups (Benton respondents) intervened and had a related proceeding.
Supreme Court ordered DEC to decide the permit within 60 days and remanded; the Appellate Division modified that relief, holding DEC could lawfully rescind the NOCA and removing the 60-day mandate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DEC had authority to rescind a NOCA	Global: NOCA, once issued, could not be rescinded or rescission was constrained	DEC: Has implied authority to rescind NOCA when new information or project changes make application incomplete	DEC has implied discretionary authority to rescind NOCA under governing statutes/regulations and federal guidance; rescission permissible
Whether DEC’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious	Global: Rescission was irrational and unsupported by record	DEC: Rescission based on substantial new information, unreviewed project changes, EPA concerns, incomplete modeling	Rescission was rational and supported by stated reasons; not arbitrary or capricious
Whether rescission/timing violated statutory 18‑month deadline for final action	Global: 18‑month clock started at NOCA and DEC cannot toll/avoid it by rescission	DEC: 18‑month deadline applies only to a completed application; rescission and tolling were lawful given incompleteness	Rescission was timely (issued on deadline) and tolled the 18‑month deadline because application became incomplete
Whether petitioner had right to mandamus compelling DEC to decide within 60 days	Global: DEC’s delay warranted mandamus to force final decision	DEC: No clear right because DEC properly rescinded NOCA and retains discretion to reassess application	Mandamus relief was improper; petitioner lacked clear right to 60‑day directive

Klostermann v. Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525 (clear right required for mandamus)
Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (mandamus prerequisites)
Matter of Sullivan County Harness Racing Assn. v. Glasser, 30 N.Y.2d 269 (agency may reconsider prior determinations when new information arises)
Matter of Arnot-Ogden Med. Ctr. v. Chassin, 229 A.D.2d 833 (agency reconsideration principles)
Matter of Concerned Citizens of Allegany County v. Zagata, 231 A.D.2d 851 (mere additional information insufficient to change NOCA status)
Matter of Pier v. Board of Assessment Review of Town of Niskayuna, 209 A.D.2d 788 (standards for permissive intervention)
Matter of Prestige Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. State of New York, 74 A.D.3d 1606 (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
Borst v. International Paper Co., 121 A.D.3d 1343 (intervention and joinder principles)