| Matter of Town of Babylon v New York State Dept. ofTransp. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00275 [47 AD3d 721] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Town of Babylon et al., Appellants, v NewYork State Department of Transportation et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and JaniceB. Taylor of counsel), for respondent New York State Department of Transportation. Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, Hauppauge, N.Y. (John M. Wagner and Kevin P.Walsh of counsel), for respondent Northeastern Aviation Corp.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the NewYork State Department of Transportation dated April 7, 2006, which issued a negativedeclaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act with respect to the constructionand operation of two airplane hangars and related parking facilities at Republic Airport in EastFarmingdale, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the SupremeCourt, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated September 7, 2006, which (a) vacated a temporaryrestraining order contained in an order of the same court dated June 1, 2006, (b), in effect, deniedthose branches of the petition alleging that the respondents violated the State EnvironmentalQuality Review Act, (c) granted that branch of the respondents' cross motion which was todismiss that branch of the petition which was for an injunction permanently enjoining therespondents from constructing and operating the hangars and parking facilities, and (d), in effect,dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.[*2]
In this proceeding, the petitioners challenge thedetermination of the New York State Department of Transportation (hereinafter the DOT) thatthe construction of two airplane hangars and related parking facilities at Republic Airport byNortheastern Aviation Corp. would have no significant impacts on the environment.
The record reveals that the DOT "identified the relevant area[s] of environmental concern,"took a "hard look" at them (Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v Jorling, 85NY2d 382, 397 [1995]), and made a "reasoned elaboration" of the basis for its determination(Matter of Merson v McNally, 90 NY2d 742, 751 [1997]). The determination of the DOTis supported by the record and should not be disturbed (see Matter of Gyrodyne Co. of Am., Inc. v State Univ. of N.Y. at StonyBrook, 17 AD3d 675 [2005]; Matter of Village of Pelham v City of Mount VernonIndus. Dev. Agency, 302 AD2d 399). Moreover, the petitioners' contention that the DOT'sreview pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8 [hereinafterSEQRA]) was improperly segmented is without merit (see Matter of Long Is. Pine BarrensSocy. v Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 80 NY2d 500, 513 [1992]; Matter ofVillage of Tarrytown v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 292 AD2d 617, 620-621[2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied those branches of thepetition alleging a violation of SEQRA, and properly determined that the petitioners were notentitled to a permanent injunction. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.