Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search


Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

November 17, 2011

EDPL § 207 Trumps CPLR Article 78 Statute of Limitations

In a September 30, 2011 decision, the Appellate Division Fourth Department held that a Petitioner in a proceeding under Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law timely challenged the Respondent agency's environmental determination despite the fact that more than four months had passed since the agency issued its negative declaration for the project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In H.H. Warner, LLC v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Petitioner H.H. Warner commenced a proceeding under Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law challenging RGRTA's Determination and Findings to condemn Petitioner's property for its proposed Renaissance Square Transit Center. H.H. Warner brought its challenge on the grounds that RGRTA failed to comply with SEQRA.

As set forth by the Court of Appeals in Stop-the-Barge v. Cahill, 1 N.Y.3d 218 (2003), the general rule is that the filing of a negative declaration by a lead agency constitutes a final determination by the agency and starts the limitations period for commencing a SEQRA challenge. Under Article 78 of the CPLR, a proceeding to challenge an agency's final determination must be commenced within four months of such determination. However, EDPL §207, as amended in 1991, allows a Petitioner in an eminent domain proceeding to challenge whether a condemnor's determination and findings were made in accordance with both EDPL Article 2 and Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, commonly known as SEQRA.

In this case, RGRTA issued its negative declaration on June 8, 2010 but did not issue its Determination and Findings under EDPL Article 2 until May 12, 2011. Within the 30-day period required by EDPL §207(A), on June 10, 2011, H.H. Warner filed its petition seeking review and rejection of RGRTA's Determination and Findings on the grounds that RGRTA failed to comply with SEQRA. RGRTA unsuccessfully argued that H.H. Warner's June 2011 challenge was untimely because the 1991 EDPL amendment was merely technical in nature and, under CPLR article 78, any challenge to SEQRA should have been commenced within four months of its June 8, 2010 negative declaration.

In a holding separate from its decision on the merits of the EDPL challenge, the Court rejected RGRTA's contention that Petitioner's challenge to its SEQRA determination was untimely. The Court agreed with H.H. Warner's position that EDPL § 207(C)(3) was amended in 1991 explicitly to allow courts to review a SEQRA determination at the same time a proceeding is brought challenging a determination to condemn property. Acknowledging that the 1991 EDPL amendment was intended to permit a reviewing Court to pass on both the EDPL issues and the SEQRA issues in one proceeding, thereby facilitating prompt review and conserving judicial resources, the Appellate Court concluded that "the statute does not require that a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding must have been commenced in order to challenge an earlier SEQRA determination." 

If you require further information regarding the information presented in this Legal Alert and its impact on your organization, please contact any of the members in our Real Property Tax & Condemnation practice area.


Click here to sign up for alerts, blog posts, and firm news.

Featured Media


EPA Lists Two New "Forever Chemicals" Under CERCLA


NYS Governor Hochul Announces Final RFP for New Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics


The Second Department Affirms Successful Storm in Progress Defense of Slip and Fall Case


The New York FY 2025 Budget – CDPAP FIs Under Threat


Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Anderson, Beauchamp, Murray, Angeles, Monegro, and Bullock—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits


Updated Bulletin on Tracking Technologies in the Health Care Industry

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out