Stop the Barge v. Cahill, 1 N.Y.3d 218 (2003)

In a challenge to agency action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the statute of limitations begins to run when the agency issues a final determination, such as a conditioned negative declaration (CND), that definitively establishes the agency’s position and inflicts a concrete injury.

Summary

This case clarifies when the statute of limitations begins for challenging agency actions under SEQRA. Petitioners challenged a CND issued by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and an air permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for a power generator on a barge. The Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations began to run when the DEP’s CND became final, not when the DEC issued the air permit, because the CND represented a definitive agency position causing concrete injury by allowing the project to proceed without an environmental impact statement.

Facts

In 1996, New York City Energy (NYCE) submitted an environmental assessment statement to DEP for permits to install a power generator on a barge in Brooklyn. DEP, as the lead agency, issued a CND in August 1997, concluding the project had no significant adverse environmental impact. Following project modifications, DEP issued revised CNDs, the last on January 10, 2000, followed by a 30-day public comment period ending February 18, 2000. Separately, NYCE applied to DEC for an air permit in 1999. DEC tentatively approved the permit on August 9, 2000, and issued it on December 18, 2000, after public comment and a hearing.

Procedural History

Petitioners commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding on February 20, 2001, challenging DEP’s CND and DEC’s air permit. The Supreme Court dismissed the action as time-barred. The Appellate Division modified, applying a four-month statute of limitations but upheld the dismissal of the claim against DEP, finding the CND triggered the statute of limitations. Petitioners and DEC appealed, arguing the statute of limitations began with the air permit issuance. DEP and NYCE argued for the CND as the trigger.

Issue(s)

Whether the statute of limitations for challenging agency action under SEQRA regarding the power generator barge project began to run upon the finalization of the conditioned negative declaration (CND) issued by DEP or upon the issuance of the air permit by DEC?

Holding

Yes, the statute of limitations began to run when the CND became final because at that point the agency reached a definitive position and inflicted an actual, concrete injury.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the CND was the final agency action triggering the statute of limitations. The Court relied on Matter of Essex County v. Zagata, 91 N.Y.2d 447, 453 (1998), stating that an agency action is final when the decision-maker arrives at a “definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury.” The Court reasoned that DEP reached a definitive position on February 18, 2000, when the public comment period ended and its SEQRA review concluded. Petitioners failed to raise their concerns during the comment period. The Court emphasized that the CND caused concrete injury by allowing the project to proceed without an environmental impact statement. The Court further noted that allowing petitioners to postpone their challenge until the air permit issuance—10 months later—would be unreasonable and inconsistent with the policy of resolving environmental issues early in project planning. The court quoted Matter of Long Is. Pine Barrens Socy. v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brookhaven, 78 N.Y.2d 608 (1991) to support the policy of early resolution of environmental issues. The Court emphasized that further administrative action was unlikely to moot the issue after the CND. The holding promotes efficiency and predictability in environmental review processes by setting a clear point for when legal challenges must be initiated.