In Matter of Gordon v. Rush, 100 N.Y.2d 236 [2003], the SEQRA action at issue resulted from storms occurring during the winter of 1992-93 that caused substantial erosion to beaches in the Town of Southampton, New York. A group of oceanfront property owners requested permission to install shore-hardening structures to prevent further erosion. The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), acting as lead agency in a coordinated SEQRA review, issued a negative declaration, finding that an EIS was not required, because there would be no significant impact on the environment. The property owners group then submitted an amended application that was eventually handled by the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, which declared itself lead agency to conduct its own SEQRA review. The Board of Review then issued a positive declaration, finding that the proposed structures could have significant effects on the environment, and required the owners to prepare a DEIS. The owners then commenced an Article 78 proceeding, challenging this determination (Matter of Gordon v. Rush, 100 N.Y.2d at 241-42). The Court of Appeals held that the Board of Review's action in issuing a positive declaration constituted a final administrative action, ripe for review, because the action, if implemented, would cause actual injury to the property owners through the expenditure of a considerable amount of time and expense ( id. at 242). On the merits, the Court found that the Board of Review was bound by DEC's negative declaration, and it therefore acted outside the scope of its authority when it decided to conduct its own SEQRA review and issued its positive declaration ( id. at 243).