In a recent Second Circuit decision, W.R. Grace & Co. v. Zotos International, No.: 05-cv-2798 (March 4, 2009), the Court followed two recent Supreme Court decisions on the oft-contested issue of when and under what sections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (the “Superfund” statute) a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) can […]
On February 10, 2009, the Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld a jury award of $6,325,000 in penalties against three defendants – property owner, gas supplier and station operator
In a recent oil spill case under the Navigation Law, an intermediate state appeals court, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, Second Department overturned a $225,000 jury award of “stigma” damages (plus $61,600 fees award) to a private homeowner for devaluation of his property values – not for clean-up costs – due to
We continue with our recent discussion of the Aiken v. General Electric Co. case, No. 505023, __N.Y.S.2d__ (3d Dep’t Dec. 4, 2008), discussed in a recent post. There is not much precedent for the Aiken case, as SVI issues are relatively new to the environmental law landscape and have not been litigated much yet.
An intermediate state appeals court, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, Third Department (upstate) recently allowed a suit to go forward against GE for injury caused by soil vapor intrusion (SVI) where the contamination that was the source of the SVI was discovered 25 years ago.
The latest installment in the Brownfields Cleanup Program (BCP) eligibility saga involves a recent October 2008 case from the Supreme Court in New York County, East River Realty Company, LLC v. NYSDEC, __ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2008 WL 4694535 (Sup.Ct. New York Cty. 2008), holding that DEC cannot use a “but-for” test when determining whether
In following our previous post concerning judicial review of DEC decisions to deny proposed developments entry into the Brownfield Cleanup Program, we discuss the New York County Supreme Court decision of
As noted in our previous post, in passing the recent Brownfield Cleanup Program Reform Legislation, the legislature did not amend the program’s eligibility requirements. As previously discussed, NYSDEC has narrowly construed the Act’s eligibility provisions and New York courts have been loath to overrule a NYSDEC decision of non-eligibility. (See our prior post, dated […]
In our most recent post, we discussed the change in the credits allowed to brownfield developers under the new statute. We now turn our attention to monitoring requirements and the reporting thereof, and other aspects of the new law.
On July 23, 2008, Governor David Paterson signed Brownfield Reform Legislation to amend New York State’s taxation and environmental conservation laws. These amendments seek to remedy previous problems with the State’s law concerning the redevelopment tax credits allowed under the program, and to create oversight programs to monitor the program […]
