99 A.D.3d 85
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Zutts own property along Route 9D and suffered repeated stormwater damage; they pursued litigation for trespass and nuisance since 2000.
- DOT constructed drainage works in 1984 and 1928 origin, leading to ongoing drainage conflicts and damage to Zutts’ property.
- Court of Claims in Zutt I (2006) found no prescriptive easement and that drainage over Zutts’ land was a continuing trespass; Zutts were awarded damages.
- Zutts sought injunctive relief; Zutt III (2009) directed DOT to implement Atkinson’s stormwater plan and not to continue trespass.
- DOT pursued a condemnation for a permanent drainage easement in 2010, proposing a 15,411 square foot irregular easement through Zutts’ property (36R-1), with compensation offered.
- Zutts filed CPLR article 78 and EDPL/SEQRA challenges alleging bad faith, improper exemptions, and failure to follow mandated procedures; Supreme Court granted relief; the order was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EDPL 206 de minimis exemption proper? | Zutts: exemption abused; taking not de minimis given 15,411 sq ft easement and deep impact. | State: de minimis taking justified; exemption valid; heavy reliance on Atkinson plan. | Abuse of discretion; exemption not de minimis; injunction upheld. |
| SEQRA Type II classification validity? | Zutts: no hard look; project not a Type II action; SEQRA review required. | State: classified as Type II; minimal environmental impact; checklist incomplete but proceedings valid. | Type II designation invalid; SEQRA review required; injunction upheld. |
| Bad faith in condemnation decision? | Zutts: State ignored court directives, acted pretextually, and pursued condemnation to avoid injunctive relief. | State: public purpose and cost analyses support condemnation; no bad faith. | Clear showing of bad faith; injunction granted. |
| Scope of injunctive relief | Zutts: prevent condemnation entirely; or enjoin as broad as necessary to stop improper action. | State: limited condemnation proceeding; only map 36R-1 condemned; broader injunction unnecessary. | Modify injunction to prohibit condemnation as depicted on Appropriations Map No. 36R-1. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of City of New York [Grand Lafayette Props. LLC], 6 NY3d 540 (2006) (EDPL 207 review scope and public hearing requirement)
- Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668 (1996) (hard-look requirement in SEQRA review)
- Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400 (1986) (SEQRA procedural framework)
- Matter of Baker v Village of Elmsford, 70 AD3d 181 (2009) (need for reasoned elaboration in SEQRA determinations)
- Matter of Cortland County [Miller], 72 AD3d 1436 (2010) (primary goals of EDPL and fair procedures)
- Matter of 49 WB, LLC v Village of Haverstraw, 44 AD3d 226 (2007) (bad faith burden and equitable relief standards)
- Zutt v State of New York, 80 AD3d 758 (2011) (affirmation of Atkinson plan and injunctive framework)
- Zutt v State of New York, 50 AD3d 1133 (2008) (rejection of prescriptive easement defense; prior ruling affirmed)