People v. Ludlow

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ludlow

75 Misc. 2d 556, 348 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1554

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 20, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 75 Misc. 2d 556 (People v. Ludlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ludlow, 75 Misc. 2d 556, 348 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The informations separately charged defendants with operating vessels on the Hudson River, in the Town of Hyde Park, in violation of section 33-c (subd. 4, par. [a]) of the Navigation Law of the State of New York, in that they [557]*557are not equipped with, antipollution control devices. It is noted that the primary responsibility for enhancing the environment rests with State and local governments, which have the authority to adopt and enforce protective statutes, including those regarding marine sanitation. (U. S. Code, tit. 42, § 4371, subd. [b], pars. [1], [2]; U. S. Code, tit. 33, § 1163, subd. [f].) In our opinion, the strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an environmental conservation statute (Nettleton Co. v. Diamond, 27 N Y 2d 182) is applicable to a statute prohibiting the pollution of the State’s waterways. Consequently, it was error to dismiss the informations upon constitutional grounds. It was also error to hold that the boarding and inspection authorized by subdivision 9 of section 33-c is unconstitutional. (See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153.)

The orders should be unanimously reversed on the law and informations reinstated.

Concur — Pittohi, P. J., McCullough and Farley, JJ.

Orders reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The informations separately charged defendants with operating vessels on the Hudson River, in the Town of Hyde Park, in violation of section 33-c (subd. 4, par. [a]) of the Navigation Law of the State of New York, in that they [557]*557are not equipped with, antipollution control devices. It is noted that the primary responsibility for enhancing the environment rests with State and local governments, which have the authority to adopt and enforce protective statutes, including those regarding marine sanitation. (U. S. Code, tit. 42, § 4371, subd. [b], pars. [1], [2]; U. S. Code, tit. 33, § 1163, subd. [f].) In our opinion, the strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an environmental conservation statute (Nettleton Co. v. Diamond, 27 N Y 2d 182) is applicable to a statute prohibiting the pollution of the State’s waterways. Consequently, it was error to dismiss the informations upon constitutional grounds. It was also error to hold that the boarding and inspection authorized by subdivision 9 of section 33-c is unconstitutional. (See Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 153.)

The orders should be unanimously reversed on the law and informations reinstated.

Concur — Pittohi, P. J., McCullough and Farley, JJ.

Orders reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Misc. 2d 556, 348 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ludlow-nyappterm-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack