Opinion ID: 2118245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Current Proceeding

Text: PetitionersNYCCELP and other nonprofit entities, as well as several individual tenantscommenced this proceeding seeking to nullify Local Law 38 and direct the City to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed legislation because the City Council failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). [2] Petitioners asserted that the negative declaration adopted by the City Council failed to identify and analyze the numerous potential adverse effects of replacing Local Law 1 with Local Law 38. Respondents answered that the City Council's enactment of Local Law 38 complied with SEQRA and that the negative declaration was facially valid. [3] In addition, respondents argued that the City Council's determination that the new law would have no significant adverse impacts was rational and rooted in the legislative policy choice to attain environmental benefits through adoption of a lead-safe approach to the problem. Supreme Court granted the petition and invalidated the negative declaration and Local Law 38 on the ground that the legislative process did not satisfy environmental review requirements. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, finding the negative declaration and Local Law 38 valid. Upon its review of the entire record, the Appellate Division concluded that the City Council's environmental review process reflected thorough consideration of relevant areas of concern. This Court granted petitioners leave to appeal, and we now reverse.