Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034, 77 N.Y.2d 761 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To have standing to challenge a governmental action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a party must demonstrate an environmental injury that is different in kind or degree from that suffered by the public at large. Allegations of purely economic harm, or of generalized environmental harms that affect the entire community equally, are insufficient to confer standing.
Facts:
- Due to concerns that landfill disposal posed a significant threat to the sole source aquifer providing drinking water for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the state legislature began phasing out landfills in the area.
- In response, the Suffolk County Legislature proposed Local Law No. 10-1988, known as the 'Plastics Law,' to ban the use of certain nonbiodegradable plastics (polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride) by retail food establishments.
- The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI), a nationwide trade organization, and other industry representatives opposed the law during public hearings.
- SPI argued that the law would have adverse environmental consequences, such as increasing the weight and bulk of solid waste by promoting paper substitutes, which could also pose environmental dangers.
- Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. (Wittman), a plastics manufacturer located in Suffolk County and a member of SPI, joined the challenge, though its products were not directly banned by the law.
- Following public hearings and a review process, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted the Plastics Law.
Procedural Posture:
- The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. and Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County (the trial court of first instance) to invalidate the County's Plastics Law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their SEQRA claim, finding they had standing and that the County had failed to comply with SEQRA, and stayed the law's implementation.
- The County of Suffolk (appellant) appealed the decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's finding of a SEQRA violation but modified the judgment to nullify the law entirely.
- The County of Suffolk (appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party whose primary interests are economic have standing to challenge a local environmental law under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by alleging potential environmental harms that are no different in kind or degree from those the general public might suffer?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. A party lacks standing to challenge an action under SEQRA if it fails to allege an environmental injury that is different in kind or degree from that suffered by the public at large. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an 'injury in fact' that falls within the 'zone of interests' protected by the statute. SEQRA's zone of interests is environmental protection, not the protection of economic interests. While the plaintiffs couch their claims as environmental harms—such as increased truck traffic, landfill volume, and potential water contamination—these are generalized grievances affecting the entire county, not harms particular to them. This requirement of a 'special harm' prevents special interest groups, motivated by economic self-interest, from using SEQRA as a tool to delay or obstruct governmental action. Because Wittman, the only local plaintiff, failed to allege any cognizable injury it would suffer that was different from the public at large, it lacks standing.
Dissenting - Hancock, Jr., J.
Yes. A party alleging a direct environmental injury that falls within SEQRA's zone of interests should have standing, and the majority's imposition of a 'special injury' requirement for a law with area-wide effects is a new, overly restrictive rule. The established test for standing only requires an injury in fact that is arguably within the statute's zone of interests, which the plaintiffs have clearly alleged through claims of potential aquifer contamination and increased pollution. The 'special harm' rule is logical for site-specific actions where impacts vary with proximity, but it is illogical and creates a paradox for a law whose environmental effects are felt uniformly across an entire county. Under the majority's rule, if everyone is harmed equally, then no one has standing to sue, effectively insulating significant governmental actions from judicial review and undermining SEQRA's purpose.
Analysis:
This decision significantly tightens the requirements for standing in SEQRA litigation, particularly for challenges to legislative actions with broad, area-wide impacts. By importing the 'special harm' requirement from zoning law, the court makes it more difficult for plaintiffs, especially those with economic motives like industry groups, to challenge environmental regulations. The ruling reinforces the 'zone of interests' test, clarifying that the alleged injury must be environmental, not merely economic, in nature. This precedent serves to limit the use of SEQRA as a procedural weapon by economic competitors or opponents of a project, but it may also shield governmental actions with widespread but undifferentiated environmental consequences from judicial scrutiny.
