251 A.D.2d 504, *; 673 N.Y.S.2d 595;
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6905, ** In the Matter of Hudson Communities Coalition, Inc., Appellant, v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation et al., Respondents, and St. John's Riverside Hospital, Intervenor-Respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
251 A.D.2d 504; 673 N.Y.S.2d 595; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6905
May 8, 1998, Submitted
June 15, 1998, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation and Department of Health of New York State to comply with the requirements of PRHPL 14.09 with respect to the proposed construction of a nursing home by the intervenor-respondent St. John's Riverside Hospital, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated May 19, 1997, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
DISPOSITION: ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents and the intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
COUNSEL: Brendan Newcomb, Yonkers, N.Y., for appellant.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Julia Ryan Christ of counsel), for respondents.
McCarthy Fingar, Donovan, Drazen & Smith, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Kevin G. Ryan, Robert M. Redis, and Robert H. Rosh of counsel), for intervenor-respondent.
JUDGES: Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
OPINION: [*504] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, [**2] with one bill of costs payable to the respondents and the intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondents fulfilled their obligations to explore reasonable alternatives and mitigate adverse impacts upon cultural resources by adopting the recommendation of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (see, PRHPL 14.09; Matter of Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine v Dormitory Auth., 224 AD2d 95, 101; Matter of Ebert v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 119 AD2d 62). Accordingly, the petition was properly denied.
To the extent that the petitioner's remaining contentions are [*505] properly before us, they are without merit.
Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.