Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Erie County

Citation: 2 ELR 20168
68 Misc. 2d 704/3 ERC 1673/327 N.Y.S.2d 488, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 12/27/1971)

No injunction will issue at the suit of a detergent-maker to restrain the enforcement of a local law prohibiting the sale of detergents based on phosphorous compounds after a certain date. All suppliers of such detergents were given nine months to begin compliance with the law, and no other maker has complained. Counter-balanced against the plaintiff's claim of possible economic harm is the substantial evidence introduced by the county that laundry detergents contribute heavily to the eutrophocation of the county's water. No burden on interstate commerce exists, and the local law became effective prior to the date state law preempted local power to enact any new controls in the area.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Charles S. Desmond
Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Reindel & Ohl
80 Pine Street
New York, N.Y. 10005

Counsel for Defendant
Robert E. Casey, Jr.
Erie County Attorney
290 Main Street
Buffalo, N.Y.

Counsel for State of New York, intervenor
Paul S. Shemin
Office of the Attorney-General
New York, N.Y.

Counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, amicus curiae
Ronald J. Wilson
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
1712 N Street NW
Washington, D.C.

Counsel for Center for Justice Through Law, amicus curiae
Richard J. Lippes
Buffalo, N.Y.