MATTER OF HALLENBECK v. ONONDAGA COUNTY

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking to compel respondent, Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA), to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). OCRRA is the "lead agency" for the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in the development of a County landfill site ( see, 6 NYCRR 617.6 [b]). In determining the sufficiency of a SEQRA review, the court's role is limited to whether "the agency has identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, taken a `hard look' at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination" ( Matter of Neville v Koch, 79 N.Y.2d 416, 424-425; see, e.g., H.O.M.E.S. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 69 A.D.2d 222, 232). If the agency has reached its determination in some reasonable fashion, "the court is not permitted to second-guess the agency's choice" ( Matter of Schiff v Board of Estimate, 122 A.D.2d 57, 59, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 604; see, Matter of Jackson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 400, 417). We conclude that OCRRA "took the requisite `hard look' at the possible and probable environmental effects of the proposed landfill" ( Residents of Bergen Believe in Envt. Democracy v County of Monroe, 159 A.D.2d 81, 84, appeal dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 936, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 803; see, Matter of Schodack Concerned Citizens v Town Bd., 148 A.D.2d 130, 134-135, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 701) and that petitioner did not present new information to compel the preparation of a SEIS ( see, 6 NYCRR 617.8 [g]; cf., Glen Head — Glenwood Landing Civic Council v Town of Oyster Bay, 88 A.D.2d 484).