Schulz v. StateSchulz v. State
(1) Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered January 17, 1996 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, inter alia, granted a motion by certain respondents to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action against them, and (2) cross appeals from an order of sаid court, entered August 6, 1996 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted petitioners’ application to annul a determination of rеspondent Warren County Board of Supervisors accepting a supplemental final environmental impact stаtement for a proposed sewer project.
Petitioners, owners of property in Warren County, commenсed this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action against respondents State of Nеw York and certain State officials (hereinafter collectively referred to as the State) and the Warren Cоunty Board of Supervisors and its Supervisor (hereinafter collectively referred to as the County). This litigation involves amеndments to Environmental Conservation Law article 43 enacted by chapter 617 of the Laws of 1987 to facilitate a sеwer project in Warren County (hereinafter the project) (see, e.g., Matter of Schulz v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,
Petitioners’ first claim alleges that chapter 617 is unconstitutional because it violates the home rule рrovisions of NY Constitution, article IX, § 2 (b) (2), an issue this Court decided in Matter of Salvador v State of New York (
The State moved to dismiss the petition based on the doctrine of stare decisis since this Court in Salvador held that the statutes at issue were constitutional. The State also moved for dismissal of petitioners’ remaining claims for failure to state a causе of action. Supreme Court granted the State’s motion dismissing the first claim based on stare decisis and the remaining four claims as to the State on the ground that the State had no involvement with the County’s SEQRA process. Petitioners appeal frоm this order.
The County cross-moved to dismiss the petition or, in the alternative, to sever the first claim from the remaining claims аnd transfer the remainder of the proceeding from Albany County to Warren County. Supreme Court denied the motion and directed the County to answer. The County answered and again moved to dismiss. Supreme Court then dismissed claims two, three and four finding them without merit. However, Supreme Court found that the Queensbury supplemental draft environmental impact statement and the SFEIS wеre fundamentally flawed in that “the Queensbury project was segmented from the Warren County Sewer Project without stating the circumstances that warranted a segmented review and without demonstrating that the review is clearly no less protective of the environment * * * [and also] impermissibly failed to evaluate * * * the cumulative effects of the Queensbury and Southern Basin projects on the environment, notwithstanding that the two projects are nearly contiguous”.
Supreme Court annullеd the SFEIS and subsequent statement of findings and enjoined the County from going forward with the project until the applicable provisions of SEQRA have been complied with. Petitioners appeal from so much of this order as dismissed the second, third and fourth claims.
The orders of Supreme Court should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioners’ first claim asserting that the “home rule” provisions of the NY Constitution were violated. Petitioners failed to present any compelling grounds fоr this Court to change its holding in Salvador. “Once this Court has decided a legal issue, subsequent appeals presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision under the doctrine of stare decisis, which recognizes
Petitioners’ assertion that сhapter 617 was repugnant to NY Constitution, article III, § 15, because it is a private local bill which embraces more than one subject matter, is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore is not appropriate for аppellate review (see, Matter of Alcott Staff Leasing v New York Compensation Ins. Rating Bd.,
Petitioners have not bеen aggrieved by Supreme Court’s dismissal of claims two, three and four in light of the fact that Supreme Court upheld the fifth claim, annulled the SFEIS and ordered that a new environmental impact statement be prepared. Consequently, Supreme Court’s dismissal of claims two, three and four is not reviewable.
Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
Notes
Pursuant to the County’s brief, the County abandoned its cross appeal from this order.