Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Simple Economic Injury Not Sufficient to Establish Standing

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Blue Lawn, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 293 A.D.2d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied a group of commercial pesticide businesses' request for declaratory judgment. The group filed the instant action challenging Westchester County Local Law No. 22-2000. It alleged that the local law was null and void because the County of Westchester failed to comply with the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The instant court held that the group lacked standing because it did not meet its burden of showing that it suffered an environmental injury different from that of the public at large.

Background

On August 21, 2000, Westchester County amended the Environmental Conservation Law to require pesticide applicators to notify neighbors of the application of pesticides in the area. Id. at 533. On October 30, 2000, after a public hearing, the Westchester County Board of Legislators adopted Local Law No. 22-2000. Id. A group of commercial pesticide businesses sought a declaratory judgment to nullify the local law alleging that the "County of Westchester failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act before its adoption." Id.

Arguments

The group argued that the local law "should be declared null and void because the County of Westchester failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act before its adoption." Id. Additionally, the group alleged that "the County of Westchester exceeded its authority by modifying the substantive requirements of the statute." Id. at 534.

Analysis and Holdings

To establish standing, the group needed to show that it suffered some sort of injury in fact. Id. Because the group "failed to meet [its] burden of demonstrating that [it had] suffered an environmental injury that [was] in some way different from that of the public at large," the instant court held that it lacked standing to bring the action. Id. It was clear to the court that the group only suffered economic injury, which was not sufficient for the group to establish standing. Id. The court also rejected the group's allegation that the county exceeded its authority by modifying the statute because the group raised the issue for the first time on appeal; therefore, it had not preserved the issue for judicial review. Id.

The case was decided on April 8, 2002.