Summerson v. Barber

• Decision Date: 26 May 1983
• Citation: 463 N.Y.S.2d 325,93 A.D.2d 652
• Parties: In the Matter of James R. SUMMERSON et al., Respondents, v. J. Roger BARBER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Appellant. In the Matter of The TAYLOR WINE COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. J. Roger BARBER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 325

463 N.Y.S.2d 325

93 A.D.2d 652

In the Matter of James R. SUMMERSON et al., Respondents, v. J. Roger BARBER, as Commissioner of the New York State

Department of Agriculture and Markets, Appellant.

In the Matter of The TAYLOR WINE COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. J. Roger BARBER, as Commissioner of the New York State

Department of Agriculture and Markets, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

May 26, 1983.

Thomas G. Conway, Albany, for appellant, Dept. of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York.

Taylor & Taylor, Penn Yann (Daniel R. Taylor, Penn Yann, of counsel), for James R. Summerson and others, respondents.

Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester (William D. Eggers, Rochester, of counsel), for Taylor Wine Co., Inc., respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and SWEENEY, KANE, CASEY and WEISS, JJ.

OPINION FOR AFFIRMANCE

WEISS, Justice.

On March 31, 1981, the New York State Wine Grape Growers, Inc., petitioned the Commissioner of Agriculture, pursuant to section 294 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, for the establishment of a marketing order which would impose an assessment upon wine grapes produced in the Finger Lakes and Western production areas of New York State for use by wineries, the proceeds of which would be used to improve wine grape quality, marketing, and the promotion of New York State wines. On March 9, 1981, respondent gave notice of public hearings for the stated purpose of "considering the promulgation of a marketing order * * * to promote New York State wine grapes and to conduct research, advertising and informational services in relation thereto, and to collect monies for the support thereof * * * ". The notice described a referendum vote together with criteria required for passage. After the hearings at which Taylor Wine Company, Inc. did not participate, another notice accompanying the referendum ballot was sent which notice and proposed order differed from the one originally sent. The modification consisted of changing the definition of wine grapes from wine grapes sold to a winery to wine grapes utilized by a winery for use in winemaking. The order provided for the establishment of an advisory board, the collection and remittance of the assessment by a winery purchasing grapes from a grower, or payment of the assessment by a winery which grows its own grapes for wine production. Of the 421 votes cast, 80 were disqualified by respondent, who determined that the petition approving the marketing order, as modified, had passed. The order filed October 1, 1981, had an effective date of August 15, 1981. Special Term, on these consolidated CPLR article 78 proceedings brought by petitioners, granted a judgment declaring the marketing order void. This appeal ensued.

Initially, we hold that Special Term erred in finding that respondent exceeded his statutory authority by including within the scope of the marketing order an assessment to be collected by a winery upon wine grapes purchased from a grower to be used in wine making or paid by a winery upon the value of wine grapes grown by it and used by such winery for wine making. In so holding, we recognize the well-established rules which limit the powers of an administrative agency to those expressly conferred by the enabling act or those necessarily implied therein (Matter of City of New York v. State of New York Comm. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293). Agency promulgated rules and regulations may only implement the law in harmony with the statute (State Div. of Human Rights v. Genesee Hosp., 50 N.Y.2d 113, 428 N.Y.S.2d 210, 405 N.E.2d 692), and reasonable acts designed to further the regulatory scheme will be upheld (Matter of City of New York v. State of New York Comm. on Cable Tel., supra, 47 N.Y.2d p. 92, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 390 N.E.2d 293). Application of these guidelines requires us to hold that the Legislature granted to the commissioner the broad power to regulate every aspect of agricultural commodities grown in the State which affects the continued production of adequate food supplies, conditions which vitally concern the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the State (see Agriculture and Markets Law, § 294, subds. ). The legislative declaration in section 292 of that law must be read to include within its scope the stabilization of the marketing of agricultural commodities not only of those products grown in this State and sold to others, but also those products grown and utilized by growers in the manufacture of food and beverage products so long as those products affect the market. We observe that the Federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce has been extended to include not only agricultural goods sold intrastate, but to include, as well, regulation of crops whether the subject of the regulation be production, consumption, or marketing, so long as the intended effect be in furtherance of the attainment of a...