Cities Service Co. v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department · Torts

TortsEnvironmental contaminationStatutory liabilitySummary judgmentNavigation Law article 12Navigation Law § 190-agroundwater contaminationcleanup and removal costs

Facts

In 1978, the State learned that gasoline had contaminated several residential drinking wells in Ulster County. Remediation efforts, including drilling new wells, cost more than $281,000 from the State Environmental Protection Spill Compensation Fund. The State alleged that leakage from underground gasoline storage tanks at nearby Arco and Citgo service stations caused the contamination and sought to recover cleanup and removal costs from parties with ownership interests in those tanks. In a separate arbitration involving contaminated property owners and the Fund, an arbitrator determined that the relevant discharges occurred before April 1, 1978, the effective date of Navigation Law article 12.

Issue

Does an arbitral determination that gasoline discharges occurred before April 1, 1978 preclude the State from recovering post-effective-date cleanup and removal costs under Navigation Law article 12? More specifically, does applying article 12 to such costs under Navigation Law § 190-a constitute an impermissible retroactive application of the statute?

Rule

Under Navigation Law § 190-a, all relevant provisions of Navigation Law article 12 apply for purposes of cleanup and removal of any public or private groundwater supply contaminated by a discharge occurring either before or after article 12's effective date. Thus, recovery of cleanup and removal costs incurred after article 12 became effective is permitted even if the underlying discharge occurred before April 1, 1978, and imposing liability for those later-incurred costs is not retroactive application.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Syracuse, gasoline from underground tanks at a shuttered service station seeped into nearby private wells in 1977. In a later arbitration between the state spill fund and homeowners, an arbitrator found the discharge occurred before April 1, 1978. In 1982, the state sued the former tank owner, Hudson Valley Fuel Mart, to recover money the fund spent in 1980 and 1981 to install replacement wells.

What is the strongest argument against Hudson Valley Fuel Mart's motion for summary judgment?

Explanation. The majority held that a prior adjudication could bind the state only as to the fact that the discharge occurred before April 1, 1978. Under Navigation Law § 190-a, however, article 12 still applies to cleanup and removal of groundwater contamination caused by discharges occurring before or after the effective date, so post-effective-date cleanup costs remain recoverable.