You are here: / / County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical...
, , , , , ,

County Water Authority Had Standing to Bring Action Based Upon the Chemical Contamination of Its Wells—CPLR 214-c Governs Actions Based Upon Contamination—Action Was Untimely

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hinds-Radix, determined that the plaintiff Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) had standing to bring a negligence/nuisance/trespass/products liability action against defendants alleging contamination of wells caused by chemicals (PCE and TCE).  However, the court determined the action was barred as untimely by CPLR 214-c.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained what the “two-injury” rule is in the context of a continuing wrong.  The court determined that CPLR 214-c was designed to eliminate the continuing-wrong statute of limitations calculation in contamination cases.  In addition, the court explained the difference between latent and patent injuries with respect to CPLR 214-c:

Generally, a plaintiff has standing to sue if it has suffered an injury in fact … in some way different from that of the public at large and within the zone of interests to be protected by relevant statutory and regulatory provisions … .

We reject the movants’ contention that the SCWA lacked standing to seek damages for injury to 115 wells where the PCE contamination level fell below the MCL (federal and state “maximum contamination level” for PCE). The MCL is only a regulatory standard which governs conduct in supplying water to the public. While the MCL may be helpful in determining whether an injury has occurred, the MCL does not set a bar below which an injury cannot have occurred … . Similarly, the MCL does not define whether an injury has occurred, since contamination below that level could result in some injury, such as increased monitoring costs … . It is undisputed that the SCWA has expended resources in its effort to address the widespread contamination, even at wells where the contamination has not risen to or exceeded the MCL. Thus, the SCWA has alleged that it has suffered an injury for which it may seek redress, irrespective of the level of contamination. * * *

CPLR 214-c was enacted in 1986 to ameliorate the effect of a line of cases which held that toxic tort claims accrued upon the impact or exposure to the substance, even though the resulting injury or illness did not manifest itself until some time later … . CPLR 214-c provides for a three-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for injuries to person or property “caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property” (CPLR 214-c[2]). The three-year period is “computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-c[2]…). For the purposes of CPLR 214-c, “discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Suffolk County Water Auth v Dow Chem Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 05420, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

You might also like
PETITIONER ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED THE RECORDS SOUGHT FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO ASSIST PETITIONER IN IDENTIFYING THE RECORDS AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS; DENIAL OF THE PETITION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE POLICE HAD ENOUGH CAUSE FOR A LEVEL TWO INQUIRY BUT DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED, FRISKED AND BROUGHT TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
The Criteria for an Exception to the “Best Evidence Rule” for Admission of an Agreement, the Terms of Which Were In Dispute, Were Not Met—New Trial Ordered
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, PUBLIC POLICY VESTS NONDELEGABLE DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IN THE PUBLIC CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
“General Supervisory Authority” Over Work Not Sufficient to Impose Liability Under the Labor Law
Adverse Possession Criteria Explained
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS HOSTILE AND CONTINUOUS FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (SECOND 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

Property Should Not Have Been Restored to Petitioner—Time for Redemption... Successive Summary Judgment Motions OK Based On Evidence Learned in Discove...