Herbst v. Town of Mamaroneck

In a lawsuit in which residents of the Town and Village of Mamaroneck in New York challenge a Town tree-cutting law, the New York Supreme Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court concluded that the Town residents had standing, rejecting the contention that their concerns regarding flooding, climate, and insect life were speculative, unsubstantiated, or conclusory. The court dismissed the petition as to the Village of Mamaroneck resident because he no longer lived in the Town and did not proffer other allegations that he engaged in recreational activities in and around the Town. The petitioners allege in their lawsuit that the Town failed to consult with experts on the law, which they said would largely make tree-cutting permissible as of right. They alleged that the Town “ignored all the science that experts and residents presented, all of which showed that the law would worsen the Town’s existing and acknowledged ‘climate emergency.’” They asserted that the Town acted arbitrarily and capriciously, violated the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, the Town of Mamaroneck Waterfront Revitalization Law, the public trust doctrine, and the Charter of the Forest.