Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

797 F.2d 110

Docket No. 1598, Docket 86-6102.

Riverdale Environmental Action Committee Along the Hudson-R.E.A.C.H. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued July 18, 1986. Decided Aug. 13, 1986.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1986-08-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1989

1 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on RIVERDALE ENVIRON. ACTION COMMITTEE v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1986-08-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

William Hoppen, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert M. Lustberg, New York City (Walter E. Zullig, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees Metropolitan Transp. Authority and Metro-North Commuter R. Co.

Randy M. Mastro, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Mary Ellen Kris and Jane E. Booth, Asst. U.S. Attys., Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Urban Mass Transp. Admin.

Before WINTER and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges, and ZAMPANO, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

¶1

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Walker. See Riverdale Environmental Action Committee Along the Hudson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 638 F.Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y.1986).

*

Honorable Robert C. Zampano, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation

/797/f2d/110 · .json · Public domain