Town of Plattekill v. Dutchess Sanitation, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 February 1977 |
Citation | 391 N.Y.S.2d 750,56 A.D.2d 150 |
Parties | TOWN OF PLATTEKILL, by its Supervisor, Dominick Ferrante, Appellant, v. DUTCHESS SANITATION, INC., Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Greenblatt & Forrester, P.C., Newburgh (Michael H. Forrester, Newburgh, of counsel), for appellant.
Mangold & Mahar, Poughkeepsie (Jennifer L. Van Tuyl, Poughkeepsie, of Pagones & Cross, P.C., Beacon, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and SWEENEY, MAIN, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
On September 8, 1962 the Town Board of the Town of Plattekill duly adopted an ordinance for the purpose of regulating the dumping of garbage, rubbish and waste and, in pertinent part, the ordinance prohibits the dumping of such substance, originating from outside the Town, within the Town. The defendant, Dutchess Sanitation, Inc., is engaged in the business of collecting and disposing of waste and garbage and has purchased a 74-acre tract, previously operated as a disposal area, upon which it intended to dump the collected substance. Defendant has purchased another tract of 279 acres and is negotiating for the purchase of a third parcel of 150 acres, both of which it contemplates using in connection with its disposal business. The three parcels are all located within the plaintiff Town's boundaries. Admittedly, until temporarily restrained, the defendant was dumping garbage and other waste, collected from outside the plaintiff Town's boundaries, upon the 74-acre parcel.
The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to permanently enjoin the defendant corporation from violating the ordinance and, after issue was joined, moved for summary judgment. Special Term denied the motion. Plaintiff contends that enactment of the ordinance was a proper exercise of its home rule powers in that such action was to protect the health and safety of its citizens and, accordingly, was in all respects reasonable and, therefore, constitutional. The defendant, of course, contends otherwise, asserting that a trial is necessary to determine whether or not the ordinance is reasonable and it further contends that the selective enforcement practice of the plaintiff renders the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to it. It also contends that it is entitled to rely on prior non-conforming use at least as to the 74-acre parcel.
Garbage is a deleterious substance (City of Rochester v. Gutberlett, 211 N.Y. 309, 318, 105 N.E. 548, 550). Adverse conditions which result from such a facility are obvious and the fact that such an operation is subject to sanitation regulations does not alter the fact that garbage dumps, no matter how carefully controlled, present some hazard to a community. Under the ordinance, the harmful conditions are not eliminated, but they are limited to an extent and the Town is entitled, in the exercise of its police power, to minimize this potential by limiting the quantity (Wiggins v. Town of Somers, 4 N.Y.2d 215, 173 N.Y.S.2d 579, 149 N.E.2d 86). This holding was reaffirmed many years later, after the adoption of more regulations, the implementation of better refuse treatment practices and after dumps had attained a more sophisticated title of landfill (Town of Stillwater v. Doughty, 25 N.Y.2d 986, 305 N.Y.S.2d 504, 253 N.E.2d 218). Nor is the Town required to defer enactment until it is faced with a serious nuisance or health problem (City of Rochester v. Gutberlett, supra, 211 N.Y. p. 316, 105 N.E. p. 550). Legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional, i.e., they are presumed to be supported by facts known to the Legislature (Wiggins v. Town of Somers, supra, 4 N.Y.2d p. 218, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Islip v. Zalak
...N.Y.S.2d 579, 149 N.E.2d 869; Town of Plattekill v. Dutchess Sanitation, 43 N.Y.2d 662, 400 N.Y.S.2d 816, 371 N.E.2d 534, affg. 56 A.D.2d 150, 391 N.Y.S.2d 750). "In today's society, it can hardly be doubted that municipalities may regulate the disposal of refuse materials" (Moran v. Villag......
-
Jones v. Town of Carroll
...(see Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, N.Y., 369 U.S. 590, 595–597, 82 S.Ct. 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 ; Town of Plattekill v. Dutchess Sanitation, 56 A.D.2d 150, 152, 391 N.Y.S.2d 750, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 662, 400 N.Y.S.2d 816, 371 N.E.2d 534 ; cf. Matter of Serota Brown Ct. II, LLC v. Town of Hempstea......
-
Dutchess Sanitation Service, Inc. v. Town of Plattekill
...the town. 1 In the 1976 litigation Dutchess' challenge to the ordinance's constitutionality was overruled (Town of Plattekill v. Dutchess Sanitation, 56 A.D.2d 150, 391 N.Y.S.2d 750, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 662, 400 N.Y.S.2d However, when, some three years later, the United States Supreme Court, in......
-
Dutchess Sanitation, Inc. v. Town of Plattekill
...from violating the ordinance regulating disposal of garbage, rubbish and other articles." Town of Plattekill v. Dutchess Sanitation, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 150, 152, 391 N.Y.S.2d 750, 753 (3d Dep't 1977). Justice Main found that Dutchess had failed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the ordina......