Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County

Citation126 Misc.2d 463,482 N.Y.S.2d 676
PartiesJANCYN MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Defendant.
Decision Date28 November 1984
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
OPINION OF THE COURT

VINCENT R. BALLETTA, Jr., Justice.

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:

"Section 1. Legislative Findings. The water resources of Suffolk County occur and are developed in a unique manner. The population of the County is served with notable drinking water obtained solely from groundwater sources. Groundwater is replenished entirely by precipitation. A major portion of this precipitation infiltrates into the soil and eventually recharges the groundwater reservoir. The groundwater reservoir is the only source of water supply at the present time and from an economic standpoint for the forseeable future. Because of the lack of public sewerage facilities; the continuing population growth, the occurrence of the water table within relatively shallow depths; the practice of maximizing recharge of storm water, and because of the very slow movements of groundwater, this resource is especially vulnerable to contamination. In the central portion of the island, infiltrator of water through the Glacial formation travels virtually vertically downward into the Magothy formation. This water has a residence time within the aquifers which may be measured in terms of hundreds of years and must serve as the source of drinking water for future generations. Chemical contaminants dissolved in these waters generally will also be transported into the deeper aquifers * * *

"Section 2. Definitions.

"a. The term 'cesspool additive' shall mean any organic chemical(s) or compound(s) used for cleaning or unclogging sewer lines or individual sewage disposal systems.

"b. The term 'person' shall mean and include any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, company or organization of any kind.

"c. The term 'commissioner' shall mean the Suffolk County Commissioner of the Department of Health Services.

"Section 3. Prohibition of Sale. No person shall sell, exchange, give, dispose of to another, offer or agree to do the same, any organic chemical(s) or compound(s) for the purposes of cleaning or unclogging sewer lines and/or individual sewage disposal systems unless approval is first obtained from the commissioner.

"Section 4. Prior Approval of Cesspool Additives Required. Before any cesspool additive is offered for sale in Suffolk County, approval must first be obtained from the commissioner by submitting scientific data which is considered satisfactory to the commissioner, demonstrating that the organic chemical(s) or compound(s) which is to be sold for the purposes of cleaning or unclogging sewer lines and/or individual sewage disposal systems will not adversely affect the groundwaters."

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:

"Prohibition of sale and use

"1. No person shall distribute, sell, offer or expose for sale in restricted geographical areas any sewage system cleaner or additive containing any restricted chemical material in excess of one part per hundred by weight.

"2. No person shall use, introduce or apply or cause any other person to use introduce or apply in any sewage system, surface waters, or groundwaters in restricted geographical areas any sewage system cleaner or additive containing any restricted chemical material in excess of one part per hundred."

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:

"This is to confirm my October 22 telephone conversation with Mr. William Robinson of your office, relating to applicability of Article 39 of the Environmental Conservation Law to your new formulation of Drainz and Super Drainz.

"Article 39 places the basic responsibility, for determining whether sale of a sewage system cleaner or additive is or is not prohibited in Nassau or Suffolk County, on the manufacturer. Based on information you have supplied to this Department, and Nassau County Department of Health analysis of one can of your product, it would appear that your new formulations of Drainz and Super Drainz are not prohibited from sale under Article 39. However, these products have not yet been approved for sale in Suffolk County in accordance with Local Law 12-1980.

"You have indicated that the new formulations will be identified by a 'sunburst' symbol on each can. Therefore, barring future Department findings to the contrary, the new formulations of Drainz and Super Drainz may be sold in Nassau County (and in Suffolk County, if and only if approved for sale by that County in the future), if the containers are identified by the 'sunburst' symbol. Containers of Drainz and Super Drainz found without the 'sunburst' symbol will still automatically be considered prohibited products in both counties."

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
2 cases
  • Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. Suffolk County
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1987
    ...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
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 1986
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT