Majority
p. 556The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Howard Ludlow and Carroll D. Smith, Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, September 20, 1972.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Philip Weinberg, Joel H. Sachs and John G. Proudfit of counsel), for appellant. Shagcm, Edwinn «3 Golomb {Barry Golomb, Donald J. Danileh and Eugene Van Voorhis of counsel), for respondents.
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
p. 557
are 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.
Cases cited
- A. E. Nettleton Co. v. Diamond 27 N Y 2d 182 p. 557
- Carroll v. United States 267 U. S. 132 at 153 p. 557