You are here: / Navigation Law
,

IN THIS OIL SPILL CLEAN UP SUIT AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER BROUGHT UNDER THE NAVIGATION LAW, THERE IS NO STATUTE PROHIBITING THE STATE FROM SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR FUNDS EXPENDED FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM FUND PURSUANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking reimbursement of oil spill clean up costs from the defendant property owner should not have been dismissed. Defendant argued the state could not seek reimbursement under the Navigation Law for funds expended from the Environmental Restoration Program Fund pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law. The Third Department found no support for the argument in the statutes:

Nothing in the Navigation Law prohibits plaintiff from seeking indemnification for funds expended from sources other than the Oil Spill Fund. Moreover, the Environmental Conservation Law requires the state to seek recovery of the funds under any statute (see ECL 56-0507 [2]). * * *

… “[T]he state of New York and any of its political subdivisions or agents” (Navigation Law § 172 [14]). Additionally, the Legislature imposed strict liability against “[a]ny person who has discharged petroleum . . . without regard to fault, for all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages, no matter by whom sustained” (Navigation Law § 181 [1] … ). The language of the statute does not limit recovery solely to the Oil Spill Fund. Rather, the fund simply serves as a possible means to effectuate the statute. “[B]arring plaintiff from seeking to hold defendant strictly liable for the [remediation] expenditures would thwart the plain language of Navigation Law § 181, as well as the express purposes of Navigation Law article 12 …”. State of New York v Alfa Laval Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01034, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here the state sought recovery of oil spill clean up costs from the defendant property owner. The defendant argued the state could not be indemnified for funds expended from the Environmental Restoration Program fund (pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law) by suing under the Navigation Law, which has its own Oil Spill Fund. The Third Department found no such statutory restriction.

 

, , ,

THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff should have preserved the underground oil tanks which allegedly leaked and contaminated plaintiff’s property, but that striking the complaint was not warranted under the doctrine of spoliation. Because the defendants did not demonstrate the destruction of the tanks made it impossible to mount a defense, an adverse inference instruction was the appropriate sanction:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for a violation of Navigation Law § 181, alleging that the defendants Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Getty Oil Company, Getty Refining and Marketing Company, and Getty Oil Company (Eastern Operations), Inc. (hereinafter collectively the defendants), discharged petroleum from underground storage tanks on the plaintiff’s property. * * *

… [T]he defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff had an obligation to preserve the tanks at the time they were disposed of, which was before the defendants had an opportunity to inspect the tanks, that the tanks were destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the tanks were relevant to the litigation … . However, the defendants failed to establish that their ability to prove a defense was fatally compromised by the destruction of the tanks, or that the destruction of the tanks was willful and contumacious … . Dagro Assoc. II, LLC v Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03884, Second Dept 6-15-22

Practice Point: Where spoliation of evidence does not take away the defendants’ ability to prove a defense, and where spoliation was not done willfully and contumaciously, striking the complaint is not warranted. The appropriate sanction is an adverse inference jury instruction.

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the underlying criminal matter brought against the plaintiffs (the Melchers) by the town had been terminated in favor of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution action against the town should not have been dismissed. The town brought criminal charges based upon plaintiffs’ construction of docks in a marina. Pursuant to the Navigation Law, the state owns the land beneath the lake and the town, therefore, did not have jurisdiction to bring the criminal charges. The criminal charges had been dismissed on that ground:

In order to maintain a civil action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show “(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding, and (4) actual malice” … . A criminal proceeding terminates favorably to the accused where the disposition is final, “such that the proceeding cannot be brought again” … , and the disposition is not “inconsistent with a plaintiff’s innocence” … . Whether a disposition was inconsistent with innocence is a case-specific determination that considers the circumstances of the particular case … .

Here, the 2008 criminal proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to CPL 170.30(1)(f) because the Town lacked legal authority to regulate the activity upon which the criminal charges were based. In the dismissal order, the Supreme Court found that “jurisdiction over the [Melchners] ha[d] never been properly obtained and accordingly the [Melchners] [could] not be prosecuted for the offenses alleged.” Under the circumstances, the disposition was not inconsistent with the Melchners’ innocence … . Melchner v Town of Carmel, 2021 NY Slip Op 03830, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

, ,

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the summary judgment motions brought by three prior insurers of the property contaminated by oil were properly granted. The three insurers, Arch, AAIC and NSC, were third-party defendants in an action for indemnification brought by the current insurer of the property, Utica Mutual. The Arch policy had a specific exclusion of coverage for the contaminant. Arch’s failure to comply with the filing requirement of Insurance Law 2307 did not void the exclusion because there was no evidence Arch violated any regulations or statutes. The actions against AAIC and NSC were properly dismissed because notification of the potential contamination claim by Utica was not made for three years after Utica was aware of the contamination:

… [The] evidence established that the petroleum cleanup and removal costs sought to be recovered by plaintiff arose out of, or were the result of, MTBE contamination at both the spill site and the Honeoye Municipal District Well and, thus, satisfied Arch’s prima facie burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint fell completely within the MTBE exclusion … . …

… Insurance Law § 2307 … states that “no policy form shall be delivered or issued for delivery unless it has been filed with the superintendent [of financial services] and either he [or she] has approved it, or [30] days have elapsed and he [or she] has not disapproved it as misleading or violative of public policy” … . However, as Supreme Court correctly noted, the failure to file under Insurance Law § 2307 “does not, by itself, void the policy clause . . .[; rather,] such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations” … . …

… Utica Mutual failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether it was justifiably ignorant of AAIC’s and NSC’s prior insurance coverage. Indeed, despite having access to Kirkwood and Kirkwood’s records immediately after learning of the contamination and its purported cause, Utica Mutual produced no evidence to show that it made any effort to discover AAIC’s and NSC’s existence before July 2010, when Utica Mutual’s counsel sent a letter to Kirkwood’s former insurance broker seeking information regarding Kirkwood’s prior insurers. Utica Mutual provided no explanation as to why it waited until July 2010 to inquire about prior insurers. State of New York v Flora, 2019 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

, ,

PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER.

The Third Department affirmed the respondent commissioner of environmental conservation’s determination petitioner had failed to obtain licenses and pay license fees for an onshore petroleum storage facility and failed to maintain an adequate secondary containment area for the storage tanks. The assessment of fees and penalties was upheld, as was piercing the corporate veil to impose the fees and penalties upon petitioner’s sole shareholder personally:

The applicable standard of review is whether substantial evidence supports respondent’s determination (see CPLR 7803 [4]…). Under this standard, “it is the responsibility of the administrative agency to weigh the evidence and choose from among competing inferences therefrom and, so long as the inference drawn and the ultimate determination made are supported by substantial evidence, it is not for the court to substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency” … . Respondent is not bound by the ALJ’s factual findings and is entitled to make his own findings … . To that end, respondent’s determination will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial evidence … . …

Under New York’s Navigation Law, a person is prohibited from operating a major petroleum storage facility in the absence of a license (see Navigation Law § 174 [1] [a]; [9]). Matter of Supreme Energy, LLC v Martens, 2016 NY Slip Op 08143, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/NAVIGATION LAW (PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/CORPORATION LAW (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, NAVIGATION LAW, PETITIONER OPERATED AN ONSHORE PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILITY WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE NAVIGATION LAW, LICENSE FEES AND PENALTIES PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER’S SOLE SHAREHOLDER)

, ,

LANDSCAPER AND ITS INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; OIL LINE SEVERED DURING SPRINKLER REPAIR.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiffs in an action under the Navigation Law based upon an oil spill. The defendant landscaping company acknowledged that its employee severed the underground oil line on plaintiffs’ property while repairing a sprinkler system. Navigation Law 181 (1) imposes strict liability upon a person responsible for the discharge of petroleum and any insurer:

Navigation Law § 181(1) provides that a person who has “discharged petroleum shall be strictly liable . . . for all cleanup and removal costs and all direct and indirect damages, no matter by whom sustained.” Article 12 of the Navigation Law defines a “discharge,” as relevant here, as “any intentional or unintentional action or omission resulting in the releasing, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of petroleum” (Navigation Law § 172[8]). The statute provides that any individual or entity “who is not responsible for the discharge” may maintain a claim thereunder (Navigation Law § 172[3]…). The statute also provides that under article 12, “[a]ny claims for costs of cleanup and removal, civil penalties or damages by the state and any claim for damages by any injured person, may be brought directly against the bond, the insurer, or any other person providing evidence of financial responsibility” (Navigation Law § 190). Bennett v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01452, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (LANDSCAPER STRICTLY LIABLE OF OIL DISCHARGE)/NAVIGATION LAW (LANDSCAPER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE)/INSURANCE LAW (INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE BY INSURED)

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy