As Bid to Place Environmental Protection in NY Constitution Gains Steam, Backers and Foes Say It Could Spur Litigation
The constitutional amendment, which wouldn't become law until 2022 at the earliest, could open the door to litigation against companies who are accused of polluting the state's environment in New York.
April 30, 2019 at 05:48 PM
6 minute read
Lawmakers in New York passed a series of bills Tuesday aimed at protecting the state's environment and the health of its residents, including the first step to a constitutional amendment that could have major legal implications for companies labeled as polluters.
The constitutional amendment, which wouldn't become law until 2022 at the earliest, could open the door to litigation against companies who are accused of polluting the state's environment in New York, said state Sen. David Carlucci, D-Rockland, who sponsored the measure.
“We're adding 15 words to the state constitution to make it simple, to say, clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment have to come first,” Carlucci said. “This would give another tool to people that have been harmed by the creation of a project or by polluters that are not really considering the environment first.”
Lawmakers in both the state Senate and Assembly approved the measure Tuesday afternoon, which is one of three steps required for the proposal to become law.
The amendment, itself, is only one sentence long. It reads that “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment” in New York. But, as Carlucci said, the measure will provide grounds for victims of pollution or contamination to bring litigation against those thought to be responsible.
“It gives us grounds to say, look, we've got to put the environment first,” Carlucci said. “There's been so many times that profits and motives outweigh the cost to the environment. So, we want to make it plain and simple.”
Paul Napoli, who is of counsel at Napoli Shkolnik in Manhattan, said the amendment is a way for state lawmakers in New York to advance environmental protections while the federal government eases restrictions on polluting entities. Napoli practices several areas of law, including personal injury and environmental litigation.
“Where the federal government is falling behind, states must step up and promote the health of our environment. We have taken these rights for granted, and it is a sad day that such inalienable rights must now be codified in an amendment in the New York State constitution,” Napoli said. “Enshrining these words will guarantee New Yorkers their fundamental right to a healthy and clean environment for generations to come.”
The amendment was also considered last year, and passed the Assembly, but stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. Democrats took the majority in both chambers this year for the first time in nearly a decade, paving the way for initial approval by the Legislature.
The measure sailed through the Assembly again Tuesday, but it faced opposition from Assemblyman Andrew Goodell, R-Chautauqua, an attorney from Jamestown, New York. Goodell questioned whether the amendment could be too broad for businesses seeking to avoid litigation because it does not strictly define what's considered “clean” or “healthful.”
“The flip side of language that has no definition … is that it doesn't have any detail,” Goodell said.
He also argued that the amendment could result in businesses moving out of New York to states without such a standard to avoid legal trouble, and claimed that's been the case in other states with similar laws. Assemblyman Steve Englebright, D-Suffolk, said he didn't expect that to be the case.
“Any new law will have a period of time when it is going to be tested,” Englebright said. “We have not observed however that any of those tests have resulted in any dislocation of business productivity or the well-being of business, or the environment.”
Carlucci said the purpose of the bill was partly to give individuals a tool to hold businesses accountable when they're accused of acting in a way that would contradict the language of the amendment. He said entities have gotten away with pollution in the past and that lawmakers were seeking a way to prevent that in the future.
“We've seen too many ways that companies have been able to get projects through, pollute the environment, and are not held accountable,” Carlucci said. “We want to end that practice and we want to make sure we're safeguarding our most precious asset, which is our air and our water.”
The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, an advocacy group that seeks to cut down on litigation, warned that the amendment could lead to a flood of lawsuits that would overwhelm the state's courts. That litigation could be targeted at local governments and municipalities, who would have to front a legal defense, said LRANY Executive Director Tom Stebbins.
“Similar legislation has been rejected in other states due to the burden increased litigation will place on municipalities and government entities. Moreover, costly lawsuits filed against environmental permit holders will delay critical infrastructure projects including clean energy and climate resilience projects,” Stebbins said. “There are ways to provide a clean environment to New Yorkers. This is not one of them.”
Approval from lawmakers Tuesday was only the first step to the proposal becoming law. An amendment to the state constitution has to be approved twice by lawmakers then be sent to voters for approval. The earliest that could happen is 2021.
The legislation was part of a package of bills passed by lawmakers Tuesday related to the environment and public health, including proposals to eliminate toys with toxic chemicals and raise water-efficiency standards for plumbing fixtures.
READ MORE:
NY Lawmakers Set to Move Bills to Target Trump's State Taxes, Sidestep Pardons
NY Lawmakers, Aiming to Curb Vaccination Exemptions, Unconcerned About Litigation
Cuomo Signals Support for Bill to Protect Immigrants From ICE Raids at State Courthouses
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readHochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Court System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250