State v. Schenectady Chemicals, Inc.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | WEISS |
| Citation | 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010,103 A.D.2d 33 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1984 |
| Parties | STATE of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v. SCHENECTADY CHEMICALS, INC., Appellant-Respondent. |
Page 1010
v.
SCHENECTADY CHEMICALS, INC., Appellant-Respondent.
Third Department.
Page 1011
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Patricia Martinelli, Albany, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, Schenectady (William P. Willig, Schenectady, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and MIKOLL, JJ.
WEISS, Justice.
This action was initiated by the State to abate a nuisance allegedly occasioned by
Page 1012
the contamination of a presently inactive waste disposal site, owned by one Dewey Loeffel, on Mead Road in the Town of Nassau in Rensselaer County (hereafter the "Loeffel site"). From the 1950s through the mid 1960s, defendant, a manufacturer of various chemical products, contracted with Loeffel for disposal of a variety of chemical waste by-products (see State of New York v. Schenectady Chems., 117 Misc.2d 960, 961, 459 N.Y.S.2d 971). Loeffel allegedly disposed of these wastes by simply pouring them into the surface water, or on the ground, or by dumping or burying containers made of steel, fiber or other degradable components. Essentially, it is charged that these pollutants have migrated through the soil and contaminated and/or pose a continued threat of contamination of the underlying groundwaters which are utilized as a source of water by neighboring communities. During the relevant period, Loeffel disposed of wastes at this site generated by defendant and at least two others, General Electric Corporation and the Bendix Corporation. While these wastes are inextricably mixed, the State approximates that some 8,250 tons, or 17.8% of the total wastes deposited, are attributable to defendant. Both General Electric and Bendix have signed consent orders requiring their participation in a remedial plan, pursuant to which each generator will bear its proportionate share of cleaning up the site. Defendant's refusal to participate in this plan has given rise to the instant lawsuit.The amended complaint sets forth eight specific causes of action, including three statutory causes of action for violation of the Environmental Conservation Law, four causes of action sounding in public nuisance and a cause of action for restitution of expenses incurred in the investigation of the subject site. Responding to defendant's CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss the complaint, Special Term, in a comprehensive opinion (117 Misc.2d 960, supra, 459 N.Y.S.2d 971), dismissed the restitution and statutory causes of action, but sustained the causes of action for nuisance. Both parties have appealed. 1
In its first two causes of action, the State essentially alleged that the continued, gradual migration of chemical wastes through the soil and into the surface and ground waters in the nearby environs constitutes a violation of ECL 17-0501, which reads as follows:
1. It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to throw, drain, run or otherwise discharge into such waters organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or contribute to a condition in contravention of the standards adopted by the department pursuant to section 17-0301 (emphasis added).
Special Term rejected this contention on a finding that the term "discharge" did not "encompass the gradual migration of pollutants through permeable soil and ground and surface water from the original dump site into the surrounding environs" (State of New York v. Schenectady Chems., supra, p. 964, 459 N.Y.S.2d 971). Plaintiff argues that Special Term misconstrued the purpose of the statute in assuming it was designed merely to prevent ongoing unlicensed disposal activities. Instead, plaintiff urges that the statute is result oriented and prohibits the contamination of State water, not simply certain types of present activities from which contamination might result, and thus applies to continued migration of pollutants. In our view, Special Term properly limited application of the statute. The general term "discharge" should be read to embrace activities similar to the specific terms before it (see McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 239). Those terms, "throw", "drain" and "run", connote some active human conduct, as opposed to a mere seepage over the course of time. Additionally, the statute speaks to a "discharge into such waters", which indicates a direct introduction of pollutants
Page 1013
into the waters, rather than a migration of pollutants from the soil. Contrary...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.Y. State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Firstenergy Corp., Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0438 (DEP)
...rejected the position that migration is the equivalent of a discharge under this section. See, e.g., State v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 35-37, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (3d Dep't 1984). 53. NYSEG does not seek recovery of costs associated with the work performed at the Plattsburgh Si......
-
Murtaugh v. New York, 5:08-CV-1168
...failure to join an indispensable party, because "nuisance liability is joint and several." New York v. Schenectady Chem., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 3 Dept. 1984). As a result, Plaintiffs' nuisance claim against Defendant New York State and Defendant Grannis is dismis......
-
Chase Manhattan Bank, NA v. T & N PLC, No. 87 Civ. 4436 (JGK).
...Inc., 190 A.D.2d 173, 177, 597 N.Y.S.2d 698, 905 F. Supp. 123 700 (1st Dep't 1993); State of New York v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 38-39, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1014 (3rd Dep't 1984); City of New York v. Keene Corp., 132 Misc.2d 745, 747, 505 N.Y.S.2d 782, 784-85 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co.......
-
State of N.Y. v. Shore Realty Corp., No. 606
...976-77 (Sup.Ct.1983) (upholding State cause of action to compel cleanup of a chemical waste site under public nuisance law), modified, 103 A.D.2d 33, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (1984). The latter, however, "threatens one person or a relatively few ..., an essential feature being an interference......
-
N.Y. State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Firstenergy Corp., Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0438 (DEP)
...rejected the position that migration is the equivalent of a discharge under this section. See, e.g., State v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 35-37, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (3d Dep't 1984). 53. NYSEG does not seek recovery of costs associated with the work performed at the Plattsburgh Si......
-
Murtaugh v. New York, 5:08-CV-1168
...failure to join an indispensable party, because "nuisance liability is joint and several." New York v. Schenectady Chem., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 3 Dept. 1984). As a result, Plaintiffs' nuisance claim against Defendant New York State and Defendant Grannis is dismis......
-
Chase Manhattan Bank, NA v. T & N PLC, No. 87 Civ. 4436 (JGK).
...Inc., 190 A.D.2d 173, 177, 597 N.Y.S.2d 698, 905 F. Supp. 123 700 (1st Dep't 1993); State of New York v. Schenectady Chems., Inc., 103 A.D.2d 33, 38-39, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1014 (3rd Dep't 1984); City of New York v. Keene Corp., 132 Misc.2d 745, 747, 505 N.Y.S.2d 782, 784-85 (Sup.Ct. N.Y.Co.......
-
State of N.Y. v. Shore Realty Corp., No. 606
...976-77 (Sup.Ct.1983) (upholding State cause of action to compel cleanup of a chemical waste site under public nuisance law), modified, 103 A.D.2d 33, 479 N.Y.S.2d 1010 (1984). The latter, however, "threatens one person or a relatively few ..., an essential feature being an interference......
-
Environmental Rights, Public Trust, and Public Nuisance: Addressing Climate Injustices Through State Climate Liability Litigation
...causes a widespread interference with the private rights of numerous individuals.”163 160. Id . at 965. 161. State v. Schenectady Chems, 103 A.D.2d 33, 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). 162. 951 A.2d 428 (R.I. 2008). 163. Id . at 452. And that, in turn, “would be antithetical to common law and woul......