In the Matter of RAYMOND FINN et al., Appellants, v CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
November 9, 2015
33 NYS3d 892
DHS’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by the evidence (see Matter of Riverkeeper, Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Southeast, 9 NY3d 219, 232 [2007]). DHS took the requisite “hard look” at the project‘s anticipated adverse environmental impacts, and provided a “reasoned elaboration” for the negative declaration (id. at 231-232, quoting Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 NY2d 400, 417 [1986]).
In preparing the environmental assessment statement (EAS) undergirding the negative declaration, DHS properly adhered to the “accepted methodology” set forth in the City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual (Matter of Chinese Staff & Workers’ Assn. v Burden, 88 AD3d 425, 429 [1st Dept 2011], affd 19 NY3d 922 [2012]). DHS did not delegate its review responsibilities to the environmental consulting firm it properly retained to assist it with the preparation of the EAS (see
We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
