This lawsuit challenges a failure of leadership. After strong community opposition, the Village Board reversed protections and allowed for the concentrated placement of cannabis dispensaries in downtown Nyack—without conducting the thorough environmental review required by law. Decisions were made without proper analysis, transparency, or meaningful public engagement. This case asks a simple question: did the Village follow the law?
 

This didn’t happen in a vacuum. Last year, residents showed up—downtown business owners, parents, school leaders, doctors, pastors, and neighbors. They spoke at meetings, wrote letters, and more than 1,000 community members signed a petition asking the Village Board not to place cannabis dispensaries in the center of downtown, where our children and community frequent every day.

​

In May 2025, the Board adopted a law creating a 2,000-foot buffer between dispensaries—limiting how many could operate in our downtown. It was a meaningful step toward protecting the character and safety of our village.

But just two months later, in July 2025, that protection was reversed—opening the door to multiple dispensaries in the same concentrated area, including approvals within feet of one another. When a municipality makes this kind of significant zoning change—affecting density, proximity, and the character of a downtown—New York law requires a careful, transparent “hard look” at the potential impacts. That didn’t happen. ​Instead, decisions were justified with general statements—without the studies, analysis, or reasoned explanation the law requires.
 

In response, residents came together to form PAVE—People Advocating Village Excellence—because we believe Nyack deserves thoughtful planning, transparency, and accountability.

​

In November 2025, PAVE and nearby property owners filed this lawsuit to ask a simple but critical question: Did the Village follow New York’s environmental review law (SEQRA) before changing zoning and approving a dispensary at 10 North Broadway?

​

On February 19, 2026, a Supreme Court judge refused to dismiss the case. The Village had argued that the case was too late, that the residents didn’t have standing, and that the claims lacked merit. The Court rejected the arguments of the Village —confirming that the case is valid and must move forward.

​

This case is not about prohibition or a war on cannabis. It is about process and lawful governance. Environmental review is not optional—especially when decisions reshape our downtown and impact our children, families, and future.

The case now moves to the Appellate Division.

​

lawsuit summary
 

Parties

Petitioner / Plaintiff
PAVE – People Advocating for Village Excellence
A community‑led organization formed by Nyack residents concerned with governance, public process, and policy outcomes, particularly land‑use decisions affecting downtown Nyack. 

Respondent / Defendant
Village of Nyack, NY, acting through its Village Board and related municipal decision‑making processes. 
 

Type of Case

This lawsuit is an Article 78 proceeding, which is the standard legal mechanism in New York for challenging the actions or decisions of a local government or administrative body.
Key features of Article 78 cases:

• The court does not re‑legislate policy

• The court evaluates process, not political wisdom 

• The focus is on whether the municipality:
  - Acted arbitrarily or capriciously
  - Followed required procedures
  - Considered the record and evidence
  - Acted within its legal authority
   

Core Issues Underlying the Lawsuit

The lawsuit arises from the Village Board’s handling of cannabis dispensary approvals in downtown Nyack.
According to PAVE, the Village:

• Allowed the possibility of multiple cannabis retail dispensaries
  - Within a highly concentrated geographic area.
  - Over a short time horizon
  - Despite substantial public opposition and commentary urging stronger zoning controls.
   

PAVE’s Central Allegations

Based on publicly stated materials, PAVE alleges that:

1. Predetermined Outcome
   Community members participated through public meetings, letters, and petitions, but PAVE claims the decision‑making appeared pre‑decided, regardless of public input. 

2. Failure to Meaningfully Consider Public Input
   While comments were heard, PAVE argues they were not substantively weighed, evaluated, or reflected in the final outcome. 

3. Lack of Evidence‑Based Analysis
   PAVE asserts that the Village’s rationale relied more on individual judgment than on documented planning analysis, impact studies, or articulated standards. 

4. Procedural Defects
   The petition challenges whether the Village:
   - Properly followed required procedures
   - Adequately explained its reasoning
   - Met legal standards for transparency and accountability under municipal law
    

What the Lawsuit Is Not

Based on available sources, this action does not:

• Seek monetary damages

• Challenge state cannabis legalization itself

• Argue that dispensaries are illegal 

• Allege criminal wrongdoing

what's the goal?

​

Relief Sought

PAVE’s Article 78 petition seeks judicial relief that may include:

• Annulment of the Village Board’s decision(s)

• A court declaration that the Village acted arbitrarily and capriciously 

• An order requiring the Village to:

1. Nullify the Local Law Passed in July 2025

2. Create a New Local Law by:

   - Taking a fresh, unbiased look at the zoning changes and dispensary approvals—this time without relying on prior conclusions or assumptions.

3. Follow Proper Procedures

   - Comply fully with all required legal steps, including environmental review laws, public notice requirements, and coordination with the appropriate boards and agencies.

4. Conduct a transparent and evidence-based reviewCarefully evaluate the real impacts on safety, health, and community character using data, studies, and open discussion—while ensuring the public can clearly see, understand, and participate in the process.

   ​

Broader Significance

The case is framed by PAVE as a governance and accountability challenge, using the cannabis issue as the trigger rather than the sole concern. According to PAVE’s public statements, the lawsuit reflects broader frustration about:

• Public safety

• Land‑use planning

• Downtown concentration of regulated uses

• Perceived unresponsiveness of local leadership

Official legal documents
Please see all documents filed here​​​​