ELR Citation: ELR 21413
(N.Y. May 9, 1991)

A plastics trade association and a local manufacturer lack standing under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge the Suffolk County Plastics Law, which bans the use of certain plastics products by retail food establishments. Plaintiffs allege that the county legislature violated SEQRA by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review before passing the law. The plastics law is intended to reduce nonbiodegradable materials in the solid waste stream and facilitate a comprehensive recycling program. The court initially notes that SEQRA itself does not provide standards for standing, so the court applies the rules established by case law. The court first holds that the trade association does not have standing because it has not demonstrated that the interests it asserts in this litigation are germane to its purposes. The association's allegation that it is seeking to protect its members' interests in their local environments is not germane to the purposes of a nationwide trade organization. The court next holds that a local manufacturer also does not have standing to challenge the Suffolk County legislature's SEQRA compliance. Although couched as allegations of environmental harm, the company alleges nothing more than increased expenses from substituting paper products for plastics. The company's allegations that increased paper manufacturing throughout the state threaten it with added energy consumption, atmospheric pollutants, and water-borne wastes are largely economic, and the court notes that economic injury alone does not confer standing under SEQRA. The company's allegations that the increased use of paper products will increase trucking traffic at disposal sites and increase waste in landfills are not cognizable under SEQRA because they are no different from the injuries that would be suffered by the public.

A dissenting judge would hold that plaintiffs have standing. The dissent notes that the majority's requirement that a plaintiff challenging a local law on environmental grounds must show special injury is contrary to SEQRA's spirit and the generally liberalized standing rules for challenging government action adopted by the New York Court of Appeals in recent years. The dissent notes that the majority's rule could present a virtual impasse to judicial review because environmental damage is shared by all and a plaintiff would not be able to show special damage that is different from the harm suffered by the public.

Counsel for Appellants
E. Thomas Boyle, County Attorney
Bldg. 158, Vets Memorial Highway, Hauppauge NY 11788
(516) 853-4049

Counsel for Respondents
Bernard S. Meyer, Jeffrey G. Stark
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein
1505 Kellum Pl., Mineola NY 11501
(516) 741-6565

Jerome H. Heckman, John S. Eldred, Ralph A. Simmons
Keller & Heckman
1150 17th St. NW, Ste. 1000, Washington DC 20036
(202) 956-5600