State of New York v. Village of Lakeside, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 385 (2002)
Under Navigation Law § 181(1), a landowner who can control activities on their property and has reason to believe petroleum products will be stored there can be held liable as a “discharger” for cleanup costs related to a spill, even without direct fault.
Summary
The State of New York sued Village at Lakeside, Inc. (Lakeside), a trailer park owner, to recover cleanup costs after a tenant’s kerosene tank leaked. The Court of Appeals held Lakeside liable as a “discharger” under Navigation Law § 181(1), despite Lakeside not owning the tank. The Court reasoned that Lakeside, as the landowner, had control over the property and knew or should have known that tenants would use petroleum products. This ruling clarifies that landowners with control and knowledge can be held responsible for spills, even without direct involvement in the discharge.
Facts
Lakeside owned a trailer park where Vanessa Green leased a trailer pad. Green owned a 275-gallon kerosene tank to heat her mobile home. In January 1992, the tank fell, spilling kerosene. The State intervened and cleaned up the spill, incurring costs exceeding $15,000.
Procedural History
The State sued Lakeside, Green, and H. Reynolds & Sons, Inc. (the tank servicer) to recover cleanup costs under Navigation Law Article 12. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the State, holding Lakeside liable. The Appellate Division reversed, finding Lakeside not liable because it didn’t own the tank. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a faultless landowner, on whose property petroleum has spilled, can be considered a “discharger” liable for cleanup costs under Navigation Law § 181(1) if the landowner has control over activities on the property and reason to believe petroleum products will be stored there.
Holding
Yes, because the statutory definition of “discharge” includes any unintentional action or omission resulting in the spilling of petroleum, and the landowner had both control over activities occurring on their property and reason to believe that their tenants would be using petroleum products.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the broad definition of “discharge” in Navigation Law § 172(8) as “any intentional or unintentional action or omission resulting in the releasing, spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping of petroleum.” The Court stated that nothing in the statute requires proof of fault or knowledge. Because Lakeside, as owner and lessor of the trailer park, had the ability to control potential sources of contamination on its property, including Green’s kerosene tank, the court found Lakeside liable. The court cited previous cases, including Matter of White v Regan, to support the idea that landowners can be held responsible for controlling events on their property that lead to a spill. The court distinguished situations such as “midnight dumping” where a landowner has no control over the polluting event. The Court noted that Navigation Law § 181-a, which allows the Fund to file a lien on real property owned by dischargers, further reflects a legislative policy of holding landowners strictly liable for cleanup costs. The Court referenced its prior holding in White v. Long, noting that a faultless landowner can seek contribution from the actual discharger under Navigation Law § 181(5). As such, the court found that the definition of “discharger” under the statute is broad and inclusive, extending to landowners, like Lakeside, regardless of whether they actually caused or contributed to the discharge. According to the court, “[b]y predicating liability on a landowner’s control over the contaminated premises, we ensure that landowners are not in all instances liable for spills occurring on their property.”