Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Counties Not Required to Follow the State Environmental Quality Review Act
in Enacting Pesticide Application Regulation

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In New York State Lawncare Association v. County of Albany, 292 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court for Albany County, which had denied the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction. The petitioners alleged that because the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) in adopting the local law at issue, it should be declared null and void. The instant court denied the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the respondent did not have to comply with the SEQRA prior to enacting the local law.

Background

On August 21, 2000, the New York Legislature amended the Environmental Conservation Law giving counties the option to require pesticide applicators to notify neighbors of the application of pesticides in the area. Id. at 720-21. In March 2001, the Albany County enacted Local Law No. 1 after conducting three public hearings. Id. at 720. Thereafter, the petitioners sought a judgment declaring the local law null and void. Id. The petitioners alleged that the county failed to comply with the SEQRA in its adoption of the law and requested a preliminary injunction while the rest of the case was still pending. Id. The court denied the petitioners' request for preliminary injunction and held that the county was not required to follow the SEQRA in enacting local law. Id. The petitioners appealed.

Arguments

On appeal, the petitioners argued that the county was required to comply with the SEQRA prior to enacting the local law. Id. Alleging that the county did not follow the SEQRA, the petitioners sought a judgment declaring the local law null and void. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court stated that "the language of ECL 33-1004(1) [was] unambiguous and allowed respondent to opt into the neighbor notification program after conducting a public hearing without regard to 'any other provision of law to the contrary,' including SEQRA." Id. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. Id. at 721.

The case was decided on March 14, 2002.