New York Law Review

Matter of 4M Holding Co. v. Diamant, 81 N.Y.2d 830 (1993): Availability of Alternate Remedy Bars Article 78 Proceeding

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

4M Holding Co. v. Diamant, 81 N.Y.2d 830 (1993)

A CPLR Article 78 proceeding is inappropriate when an adequate alternative remedy at law exists.

Summary

4M Holding Co. sought to annul an environmental lien placed on its property due to a petroleum discharge. The company argued it wasn’t liable because it had transferred control of the property to a third party. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of 4M Holding’s Article 78 proceeding, holding that an alternative adequate remedy at law existed. Specifically, the court pointed to Lien Law § 59 which gives petitioner a statutory remedy to effect the vacatur of the lien and the pending plenary civil action where 4M Holding could dispute its classification as an entity liable for the discharge. Therefore, because an adequate remedy existed, the Article 78 proceeding was inappropriate.

Facts

4M Holding Co. owned property operated as a gasoline station. In 1993, they leased the station to a third party, who purchased the pumps, fuel lines, tanks, and related fixtures. In 1994, the Department of Environmental Conservation notified 4M Holding Co. of a petroleum discharge on the property, asserting their liability for cleanup under Navigation Law § 181. The State Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund spent over $143,000 on cleanup. The Fund then filed an environmental lien against 4M Holding Co.’s property and commenced a plenary action for reimbursement.

Procedural History

4M Holding Co. initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to vacate the environmental lien. The lower courts dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and 4M Holding Co. appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul and vacate an environmental lien should be dismissed on the ground that another adequate remedy at law was available.

Holding

Yes, because Lien Law, article 3, § 59 gives petitioner a statutory remedy to effect the vacatur of the lien, and because in the State’s pending plenary civil action to recover clean-up costs, petitioner has the opportunity to dispute its classification as an entity liable for the discharge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that a CPLR Article 78 proceeding is not appropriate when another adequate remedy at law is available, citing CPLR 7801(1) and prior case law. The court found that Lien Law § 59 provides a statutory remedy for vacating the lien. The court also noted that in the state’s ongoing civil action to recover cleanup costs, 4M Holding Co. could dispute its classification as a liable party, which is necessary for the lien’s validity. The court emphasized that because an alternative remedy existed, the Article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed.

The court referenced Navigation Law § 181-a [1] [a] which states that an environmental lien may be filed upon property whose owner is a person liable under section 181.

The court also cited the case of Matter of Selwyn Realty Corp., 184 App Div 355, 358, affd 224 NY 559.

The Court explicitly declined to address the Appellate Division’s alternative reasoning that 4M Holding Co.’s ownership status was sufficient to impose liability for cleanup costs under Navigation Law § 181(1), as the existence of an adequate alternative remedy was sufficient to resolve the case.

More ARTICLES