Chinese Staff and Workers Association v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
502 N.E.2d 176, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 509 N.Y.S.2d 499 (1986)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
The City of New York (city) (defendant) enacted City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR), an executive order, as required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). CEQR required the city’s lead agencies to prepare an environmental-impact statement (EIS) for a proposed construction project if, considering the short- and long-term and primary and secondary effects of the project, it might have a significant effect on the environment. Henry Street Partners applied for a special permit to develop a high-rise luxury condominium in the city’s Chinatown section. The lead agency conducted an environmental review and determined that no EIS was necessary. Relying on the lead agency’s determination, the city granted the special permit. The Chinese Staff and Workers Association (the association), along with other members of the Chinatown community (plaintiffs) challenged the grant of the special permit. The association argued that the lead agency had conducted its environmental review without considering whether the construction project would accelerate the displacement of low-income residents and businesses or alter the character of the community. According to the association, the environmental review was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider these factors as required by CEQR.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alexander, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Wachtler, Hancock, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
