You are here: / / SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S P...

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under the Navigation Law for damages caused by on oil spill on plaintiff’s property. Defendant did not show the oil could not have reached surface water or groundwater:

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that an employee of the appellant overfilled the plaintiff’s oil tanks and discharged oil onto the plaintiff’s premises, and that the plaintiff’s property was damaged as a result of the discharge … . The appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition by demonstrating that it did not spill oil “into the waters of the state or onto lands from which it might flow or drain into said waters” … . Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it was not sufficient for it to merely demonstrate that the oil spill on the plaintiff’s property did not actually reach the surface or groundwater. It was required to also demonstrate that the oil spill could not have done so … . Zincke v Pacific Energy Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00341, 2nd Dept 1-18-17

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY)/NAVIGATION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY)/OIL SPILL (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY)

You might also like
Question of Fact Re: Whether the “Continuous Representation Doctrine” Tolled the Three-Year Statute of Limitations in a Legal Malpractice Action
A Conditional Judgment May Be Rendered On the Issue of Contractual Indemnity—The Party Seeking Contractual Indemnity Must Be Free from Negligence
BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.
DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SELLER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED; THE CONTRACT WAS SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY APPROVAL BUT NO DEADLINE FOR ATTORNEY-APPROVAL WAS SET BY THE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL INFORMED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE EITHER SEVEN OR NINE DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, WHICH WAS DEEMED A REASONABLE TIME (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT... BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION...