• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

South Bronx Unite! v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

Filing Date: 2012
Case Categories:
  • State Law Claims
    • State Impact Assessment Laws
Principal Laws:
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
Description: Challenge to approvals facilitating relocation of grocery delivery service’s operations.
  • South Bronx Unite! v. New York City Industrial Development Agency
    Docket number(s): 0260462/2012
    Court/Admin Entity: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    05/31/2013 Decision Download Denied petition. Local residents and community organizations challenged various governmental actions that facilitated the relocation of a grocery delivery service’s operations from Queens to the Bronx in New York City. Among other claims, the petitioners-plaintiffs alleged that environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) had been inadequate, including with respect to consideration of climate change. The court was not persuaded by the challengers’ assertions of inadequacies in the methodologies employed in the environmental review, which found that the project would result in fewer vehicle trips per day than a fully built-out land use plan that had been studied in a 1993 environmental impact statement.  With respect to the challengers’ allegations regarding the lack of consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, the court concluded without discussion that the respondents had established that SEQRA did not require consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in the circumstances presented by this project.
  • South Bronx Unite! v. New York City Industrial Development Agency
    Docket number(s): 11459
    Court/Admin Entity: N.Y. App. Div.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    03/27/2014 Decision Download Decision issued. The New York Appellate Division affirmed. The decision did not address the respondents' consideration of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change in the environmental review.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.