You are here: / / Strict Liability for Clean Up of Petroleum Spilled Between 1890 and 19...

Strict Liability for Clean Up of Petroleum Spilled Between 1890 and 1935

The Fourth Department determined the current owners of land contaminated with petroleum between 1890 and 1935 were strictly liable for clean-up under the Navigation Law, despite intervening use of the land as a scrap yard:

We conclude that plaintiffs established their entitlement to a determination that defendants are contributing “dischargers” pursuant to Navigation Law § 172 (8) and thus are strictly liable under section 181 (1) for, inter alia, the cleanup and removal costs…, despite the fact that the parcels subsequently were the sites for various commercial operations that also may have contributed to the contamination of the properties, including a scrap yard.  …

Plaintiffs provided the affidavits of two experts explaining that samples taken from depths of 6 to 14 feet below the surface contained contaminants that are consistent with refinery operations and that, based upon the age and depths of the samples, could only have been caused by the refinery operations. One Flint St LLC… v Exxon Mobil Corporation…, 1281, 4th Dept 12-27-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF GOLFER ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING AND FALLING ON A LANDING WET FROM RAIN AT THE TWELFTH HOLE OF DEFENDANT GOLF COURSE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
MOTHER DID NOT DEFAULT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING BECAUSE HER ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DISCIPLINARY FINDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER, A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER WHO SLAPPED AN UNRULY STUDENT, TERMINATION WAS TOO SEVERE A PENALTY, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.
STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR CLAIMANT’S EXPERT RE: TESTING FOR CONTAMINATION BY HIGHWAY DEICING AGENTS.
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED BEYOND THE PLEADINGS IN CONSIDERING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Review of Agency’s Condemnation of Land Explained/Failure to... Conversion Cause of Action Cannot Be Based Solely Upon Allegations of Breach...