Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County
Citation | 126 Misc.2d 463,482 N.Y.S.2d 676 |
Parties | JANCYN MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant. |
Decision Date | 28 November 1984 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of a certain cesspool cleaning product known as "Drainz" seeks a judgment declaring that Local Law 12-1980, enacted by the legislature of the County of Suffolk, is null, void and of no effect, and further declaring that the plaintiff may lawfully sell Drainz in Suffolk County.
The pertinent provisions of said ordinance state:
Pursuant to this local law, Suffolk County, in June 1981, banned the sale of Drainz. Thereafter, the plaintiff commended an action in Federal District Court. The complaint stated five causes of action, and pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (in U.S.Code, tit. 28, Appendix ), the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the first and second causes of action. The first cause of action alleged that the local law deprived the plaintiff of its civil rights and that it is unconstitutional, and in the second cause of action the plaintiff alleges that it is deprived of its civil rights to sell certain products, and further, that the local law conflicts with and is pre-empted by Article 39 of New York State's Environmental Conservation Law. In a decision dated April 6, 1984, Hon. I. Leo Glasser abstained from deciding the plaintiff's motion pending a resolution in a state court of the pre-emption issue raised in the second cause of action. Judge Glasser's decision indicated that it would be more appropriate for a state court to rule on the pre-emption issue first. Judge Glasser did, however, retain jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, in conformity with the Judge Glasser's decision, the plaintiff commenced the within action to determine the pre-emption issue.
Essentially, it is the plaintiff's contention that Suffolk County was without jurisdiction to enact this local law since it has been pre-empted from taking jurisdiction by virtue of New York State's enactment of Article 39 of the State Environmental Conservation Law.
Article 39 of the Environmental Conservation Law took effect on September 28, 1980, some two months after the effective date of Local Law 12-1980. In enacting this Article, the state legislature indicated in Section 39-0101 that:
"It is declared to be the public policy of this state to prevent the pollution of water resources in restricted geographical areas through the use of sewage system cleaners and additives by establishing a regulatory program restricting the use of such products."
Section 39-0103 defines "restricted geographical areas" as Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
To implement the provisions of the stated policy contained in Section 39-0101, Section 39-0105 was enacted. Section 39-0105 states:
What constituted "restricted chemical material" was specifically enumerated in Section 39-0103.
On October 23, 1980, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation wrote the following letter to the petitioner:
In this proceeding, the plaintiff moves for summary judgment based upon its contention that Article 39 of the Environmental Conservation Law pre-empted any local law enacted by Suffolk County. The defendant cross-moves for leave to serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County
...motion, granted defendant's cross motion and dismissed the complaint, thereby sustaining the validity of Local Law No. 12 (126 Misc.2d 463, 482 N.Y.S.2d 676). The court determined that the Legislature, in enacting article 39, had not clearly manifested an intent to occupy the entire field o......
-
Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County
...judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. County of Suffolk, 126 Misc.2d 463, 482 N.Y.S.2d 676). ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is grante......