73 N.Y.2d 434 | NY | 1989
Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Under ECL 3-0305 (1), the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is empowered to "acquire any real property which he deems necessary for any of the purposes or functions of the department, by purchase or as provided in the eminent domain procedure law” (emphasis added). With regard to acquisitions for purposes of fish and wildlife management, such as providing the public fishing access involved here, the Commissioner has specific authority under ECL 11-2103 (1) to "acquire [lands] by lease, purchase, gift, devise, agreement or otherwise” (emphasis added). The narrow question presented is whether the absence of explicit reference to eminent domain power in ECL 11-2103 precludes the exercise of that power, granted generally to the Commissioner in ECL 3-0305, to condemn land for a public fishing
Pursuant to its responsibility to manage the State’s fish and wildlife resources (see generally, ECL arts 11, 13), DEC proposed a "low-key fishing access site” on the southside of Keuka Lake. The facility, consisting of a boat-launching ramp and adjacent parking lot, was to be located in the Village of Hammondsport on 3.2 acres currently owned by Bath and Hammondsport Railroad Company. Following protracted environmental and historical impact studies, public hearings and comment, and modifications to DEC’S plans, the Commissioner approved the proposal including the condemnation of the necessary lakeshore property.
The village and the railroad company commenced separate EDPL 207 proceedings in the Appellate Division challenging, among other things, DEC’S statutory authority to acquire the railroad company’s land by eminent domain. The Appellate Division granted the petitions and annulled DEC’s determination on the ground that, absent explicit, specific provision in ECL 11-2103, acquisitions by eminent domain were not authorized for public hunting and fishing grounds. We now reverse.
The controlling principle in the interpretation of statutes is, of course, the Legislature’s intent (see, Ferres v City of New Rochelle, 68 NY2d 446, 451; People v Ryan, 274 NY 149, 152). With regard to ECL 3-0305 (1), the correspondence between that provision’s plain language and legislative history renders its meaning and intended purpose unmistakable. The provi
A brief review of that history demonstrates that the Legislature intended to provide the Commissioner with broad condemnation power, exercisable for each of the proper functions of the Department — including fish and wildlife management. Under current law, DEC has three major areas of responsibility: lands and forests, fish and wildlife, and water resources. Prior to 1960, the exercise of eminent domain by the former Department of Conservation was authorized only with regard to its division of lands and forests. The old Conservation Law, in its article dealing exclusively with lands and forests, contained a limited provision permitting condemnation solely for the Adirondack and Catskill parks (§ 59 [L 1916, ch 451]). The general provisions of the statute — as well as those pertaining to fish and wildlife — made no reference to any type of land acquisition. Despite various amendments and modifications to the statute over the next 33 years (see, e.g., L 1938, chs 40, 363; L 1955, ch 630), there remained only the single limited provision authorizing the exercise of eminent domain.
In 1960, the Legislature replaced that eminent domain provision with a new one (§ 13 [L 1960, ch 759]). Notably, the new provision was placed, not in the article pertaining to lands and forests but, in the one dealing with the over-all organization of the Department and the powers generally exercisable by the Commissioner.
In 1970, the Department of Environmental Conservation was created by a merger of the former Conservation Department and the Water Resources Commission (L 1970, ch 140). Two years later, the Environmental Conservation Law was codified and the provision granting general eminent domain power was renumbered ECL 3-0305, with the former exception for water resources functions deleted (L 1972, ch 664). Finally, in 1978, ECL 3-0305 was amended to require that condemnation be exercised in accordance with the new Eminent Domain Procedure Law (L 1978, ch 727). That is the current state of the statute. Nothing in the recodification of the old Conservation Law or in the subsequent amendments to the Environmental Conservation Law has altered the purpose or effect of the general eminent domain provision originally enacted in 1960, now ECL 3-0305 — i.e., to authorize the condemnation of
The rule relied on by petitioners and the court below, that eminent domain statutes must be strictly construed (see, Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 255-256; Society of N. Y. Hosp. v Johnson, 5 NY2d 102, 105-106), does not support a different conclusion. Whether construed strictly or otherwise, the plain language of ECL 3-0305 (1), conferring the power of eminent domain in unqualified terms, can mean only one thing — i.e., the Legislature intended a general grant of authority to the Commissioner to condemn property for "any of the purposes or functions of the department” (emphasis added).
Notwithstanding the unrestricted grant of authority in ECL 3-0305 (1), petitioners perceive a contradictory legislative intent in ECL 11-2103 (1) to preclude the use of eminent domain for acquisitions under article 11. There is nothing in ECL 11-2103 (1) which expressly limits or prohibits the use of condemnation; it merely enumerates diverse methods of voluntary acquisition which DEC may employ for fish and wildlife purposes. Petitioners, nonetheless, argue that the omission of any mention of eminent domain in that provision evinces a legislative intent to exclude condemnation from the means available to acquire fish and wildlife lands. To find this purported exclusion, petitioners go beyond the statutory language and employ two rules of construction. First, they apply "ejusdem generis” (see, McKinney’s Statutes § 239 [b]) and conclude that the Legislature specifically intended the "or otherwise” phrase in ECL 11-2103 (1) to encompass only voluntary acquisitions such as purchase and lease. Then, petitioners rely on "expressio unius est exclusio alterius” (see, McKinney’s Statutes § 240) to interpret the absence of specific mention of eminent domain in ECL 11-2103 (1) as an intentional withholding of that power from fish and wildlife management and, thus, an exception to the general grant in ECL 3-0305 (1).
Nor are we persuaded that, because the power of eminent domain is conferred with varying limitations in certain other provisions of the present consolidated Environmental Conservation Law (see, e.g., ECL 9-0501, 15-0311, 16-0107, 45-0113 [1]), it should be concluded that the Legislature intended to preclude the Commissioner from exercising that power with respect to fish and wildlife acquisitions where it has not been specifically granted.
Accordingly, the orders of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matters remitted for consideration of the issues not reached by that court.
. These two sections currently provide as follows:
"Article 3 — Department of Environmental Conservation; General Functions, Powers, Duties and Jurisdiction”.
"§ 3-0305. Acquirement of real property by purchase or appropriation
"1. The commissioner when moneys therefor have been appropriated by the legislature or are otherwise available, may acquire any real property which he deems necessary for any of the purposes or functions of the department, by purchase or as provided in the eminent domain procedure law” (emphasis added).
"Article 11 — Fish and Wildlife”
"§ 11-2103. Acquisition and use of property”
"1. The department shall have power to acquire by lease, purchase, gift, devise, agreement or otherwise from any sources, lands, waters or lands and waters, or any right or interest therein for the purpose of establishing and maintaining public hunting, trapping and fishing grounds” (emphasis added).
. The new eminent domain provision (§ 13; L 1960, ch 759), provided in pertinent part:
"Acquisition of real property by purchase or appropriation
”1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or any other law, the commissioner, when moneys therefor have been appropriated by the legislature or are otherwise available, may acquire any real property which he deems necessary for any of the purposes or functions of the department,*439 other than the purposes and functions of the water resources commission provided for in article five of this chapter, by purchase or, in the manner hereinafter specified, by appropriation. Title to such real property shall be taken in the name of and be vested in the people of the state of New York; provided, however, that no real property shall be so acquired by purchase unless the title thereto shall be approved by the attorney general.” (Emphasis added.) (The remainder of section 13 detailed the procedures to be followed by the Commissioner when exercising the power of eminent domain.)
. One major exception, actually outside the jurisdiction of the Conservation Department, was explicitly noted — i.e., the purposes and functions of the Water Resources Commission, which had been created the same year (L 1960, ch 7). Although the Conservation Commissioner was its chairman, the Water Resources Commission had its own powers and responsibilities set forth in a separate statute (see, e.g., L 1960, ch 7, Conservation Law §§ 410, 423, 427).
. As evident from the supporting memoranda for the 1978 amendment, the current ECL 3-0305 (1) has two basic purposes: (1) to require DEC to follow the EDPL when appropriating real property and (2), as long as the Department does so, to continue to permit the Commissioner to acquire land by eminent domain "as he deems necessary for any of the purposes of the department” (see, Governor’s Program Mem, Bill Jacket, Senate Bill 10339, L 1978, ch 727, 1978 NY Legis Ann, at 399; see also, Department of State Mem in Support; Office of General Services Mem; Department of Transportation Mem).
. If the argument is given its logical application, it would follow that the State’s power to acquire property by eminent domain for public use of lands and forests has been largely curtailed inasmuch as several provisions of article 9 dealing with acquisition for lands and forests (see, e.g., ECL 9-0105, 9-0105 [2], [7], [7-a]; 9-0107, 9-0109) currently contain no specific grant of eminent domain power. As noted (see discussion of statutory history, supra, at 438-440, n 4), the authorization to acquire property by eminent domain, which was originally contained among the provisions dealing with lands and forests (L 1916, ch 451, Conservation Law § 59), was transferred in 1960 to that part of the statute pertaining to the over-all organization of the Department (Conservation Law § 13 [L 1960, ch 759]). The precursor of the present ECL 3-0305 (1) was thus enacted. There is nothing in the statutory history suggesting that the Legislature contemplated that, by transferring the eminent domain authority to the general provision and not mentioning it specifically in certain provisions, it was, by implication, effecting a repeal of much of the Department’s power of eminent domain for lands and forests, including the long-held power for acquisition of lands within the Adirondack and Catskills parks (see, ECL 9-0105 [2], [7], [7-a]; 9-0107, 9-0109).
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I would affirm the unanimous Appellate Division orders granting the petitions to annul the determination of the Department of Environmental Conservation.
I cannot agree that the question is as posed by the majority —"whether the absence. of explicit reference to eminent domain power in ECL 11-2103 precludes the exercise of that power, granted generally to the Commissioner in ECL 3-0305, to condemn land for a public fishing purpose.” (Majority opn, at 436-437.) Nor can I agree that the answer, even to this question, is plain, unambiguous, unmistakable or without doubt, as the majority repeatedly insists.
The difficulty is not simply with what ECL 11-2103 (1) omits, but with what it says: "The department shall have power to acquire by lease, purchase, gift, devise, agreement or otherwise from any sources, lands, waters or lands and waters, or any right or interest therein for the purpose of establishing and maintaining public hunting, trapping and fishing grounds.” Some sections of the ECL expressly gave the Department of Environmental Conservation the power to acquire property by eminent domain; still others were silent on the subject. By contrast, ECL 11-2103 (1) gave the Department power to acquire land for fish and wildlife management only by way of voluntary transfer. That is the meaning of the specific grant of power to acquire by "lease,” "purchase,” "gift,” "devise” and "agreement”. The words "or otherwise” must be read as meaning like in kind to the categories that precede that phrase or it would swallow up the section. We have so held countless times (see, e.g., People v Illardo, 48 NY2d 408, 416; Matter of Bowen v Allen, 13 NY2d 663, affg 17 AD2d 12 [Bergan, P. J.]; Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 256; Daly v Haight, 224 NY 726, affg 170 App Div 469; Philbrick & Brother v Florio Co-op. Assn., 200 NY 526, affg on
The matter thus is not one of mere omission of eminent domain power from ECL 11-2103 (1) but of the Legislature’s specific grant of only limited acquisition power, now overridden by the court.
While the Legislature’s intent is surely controlling in the interpretation of statutes, in questions of the condemnation power, the Legislature’s expression of its intent is particularly weighty. "One of the most firmly established principles of the law of eminent domain is that the burden is on a party seeking to exercise the power of eminent domain to show a warrant from the legislature either in express terms or by necessary implications.” (1A Nichols, Eminent Domain § 3.213 [3d ed 1985].) Time and again we have recognized that because the power of eminent domain is exercised in derogation of the rights of citizens, statutes that purport to delegate the power must be strictly construed (see, e.g., Society of N. Y. Hosp. v Johnson, 5 NY2d 102, 106-107). The power will not be extended or enlarged by inference or implication (see, Schulman v People, 10 NY2d 249, 255, supra). "Even though there be an apparent grant of the power, if such grant is not clear and explicit * * * the grant will not be implied.” (1A Nichols, op. cit., at 3-84.) If there is a doubt as to whether or not the power exists, it "should be solved adversely to the claim of power.” (Matter of New York & Harlem R. R. Co. v Kip, 46 NY 546, 552; see also, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 293, at 453).
The Legislature may well have intended the eminent domain power conferred by ECL 3-0305 (1) to extend to all lands for all conceivable departmental functions, as the majority now holds; while the predecessor statute (Conservation Law § 13 [1]) began, "[notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter” (majority opn, at 438, n 2), those words have been deleted from ECL 3-0305 (1). The Legislature may well have intended to supersede its restrictive grant in ECL 11-2103 (1) and in the several other sections that similarly bestow only limited acquisition powers on the Department; the majority now sweeps those sections away as "arguably * * * surplus-age.” (Majority opn, at 442.) In neither respect is the legislative intent plain, unambiguous, unmistakable or free from doubt as the majority says. If indeed that is what the Legislature intends, it should say so. Until it does, like the Appellate
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Alexander and Titone concur with Judge Hancock, Jr.; Judge Kaye dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Judge Bellacosa concurs.
In each case: Order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.
The majority expresses concern that to read the statutes as they are written would largely curtail the State’s power to acquire property for public use of lands and forests, for those sections contain no specific grant of eminent domain power (majority opn, at 441, n 5). That concern is not only irrelevant here but also unfounded. The cited sections do not specifically limit the Department’s power and can be read harmoniously with a broad grant of eminent domain power in ECL 3-0305; ECL 11-2103 cannot.