Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. v. County of Suffolk, 71 N.Y.2d 91 (1987)
A local law is not invalid as inconsistent with state law unless there is an express conflict or the state has clearly evinced a desire to preempt the entire field, precluding further local regulation.
Summary
Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. challenged Suffolk County Local Law No. 12, arguing it was preempted by New York Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 39, which regulates sewage system cleaners. The Local Law required county approval for the sale of cesspool additives, while the state law regulated certain chemicals in those additives in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The Court of Appeals held that the local law was valid, finding no express conflict with the state law and no clear indication the state intended to preempt the entire field of sewage system cleaner regulation. The court emphasized that the state law addressed specific toxic chemicals, while the local law had a broader scope, indicating no intent for statewide uniformity.
Facts
Suffolk County enacted Local Law No. 12, requiring approval from the county’s Department of Health Services for the sale of cesspool additives. Jancyn Manufacturing Corp. produced “Drainz,” a cesspool additive. Subsequently, New York State enacted ECL Article 39, regulating sewage system cleaners in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Jancyn sought state approval to sell its products. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) indicated “Drainz” was not prohibited under Article 39, but required Suffolk County approval per Local Law No. 12. Suffolk County then prohibited the sale of “Drainz.”
Procedural History
Jancyn sued in federal court, arguing Local Law No. 12 was preempted by ECL Article 39. The District Court abstained, pending state court resolution of the preemption issue. Jancyn then sued in state court. The Supreme Court upheld the local law. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the local law inconsistent with state law. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether Suffolk County Local Law No. 12 is invalid because it is in conflict with or has been preempted by ECL Article 39.
Holding
No, because there is no express conflict between the local law and the state law, nor has the state evinced a desire to preempt the entire field of sewage system cleaners and additives.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that local governments cannot adopt laws inconsistent with the state constitution or general state laws. Inconsistency exists not only with express conflicts, but also when the state preempts an entire field, precluding local regulation. Preemption occurs when a local law prohibits conduct the state considers acceptable or imposes additional restrictions on state-granted rights. However, the court noted, “‘This statement of the law is much too broad. If this were the rule, the power of local governments to regulate would be illusory’”. The court found no express conflict between Local Law No. 12 and ECL Article 39; the state law imposed obligations on manufacturers, and both laws sought to regulate the same subject. The key question was whether the state intended to preempt the field. The Court found no such intent. The legislative declaration accompanying Article 39 lacked any desire for across-the-board uniformity. The statute addressed specific toxic chemicals, not all potentially toxic chemicals. The DEC’s belief that the statute did not preempt local legislation was also significant. The court reasoned, “although both article 39 and the local law share the same goal — protection of the Long Island water supply— the scope of article 39 is not nearly as broad as plaintiff contends”. The court rejected the argument that the local law was invalid because it prohibited what state law would allow, stating that this principle only applies when the legislature intends to preempt local regulations. The court reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the validity of Local Law No. 12.