ers who sell or distribute cooling appliances in New York City and the need to dispose safely of refrigerants in the same manufacturers’ appliances when they are discarded in New York City. Plaintiff argues that Local Law 69 is unreasonable because the manufacturers may be charged for the City’s servicing of their appliances that they sold or distributed outside New York City. This argument fails for several reasons. First, that the Law may incidentally embrace activities beyond the city limits does not render it unreasonable as a matter of law, especially given that Local Law 69 limits the manufacturers covered to those that have availed themselves of the New York City market for cooling appliances. See id.; Bakalar v. Lazar, 71 Misc.2d 683, 336 N.Y.S.2d 695, 698-99 (Sup.Ct.1972) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if such cases might conceivably
holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that city rules governing taxicab rides to destinations outside of the city are not invalid merely because they incidentally embrace activities outside of the city