have consistently held that waste disposal is subject to regulation by municipalities pursuant to their police powers. See Riley v. Monroe Cnty., 43 N.Y.2d 144, 400 N.Y.S.2d 801, 371 N.E.2d 520, 522 (1977) (characterizing waste disposal as an issue that “certainly affects the health and welfare of [the county’s] citizens” and is therefore subject to its police powers); Jamaica Recycling Corp. v. City of N.Y., 12 Misc.3d 276, 816 N.Y.S.2d 282, 291 (Sup.Ct.2006) (collecting “a long line of cases which hold that, in the exercise of their police powers, municipalities may regulate the disposal of solid waste”), aff'd, 38 A.D.3d 398, 832 N.Y.S.2d 40 (2007); cf. United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330, 344, 127 S.Ct. 1786, 167 L.Ed.2d 655 (2007) (<HOLDING>); USA Recycling, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 66
recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that an appeal is not moot so long as the appellate court can fashion relief that is both effective and equitable internal quotation marks omitted alteration in original holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted holding that two new york counties ordinances governing the flow of solid waste does not violate the commerce clause in part because waste disposal is both typically and traditionally a local government function alteration in original internal quotation marks omitted holding that the reviewing court must accept the adverse credibility finding so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioners claim of persecution internal quotation marks omitted first alteration in original