Klaus v. Town of Brookhaven

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, held that 42 USC § 9658 applies to state-law toxic tort actions involving exposure to hazardous substances released from a facility, even when the claims do not otherwise fall within CERCLA's liability provisions. The court concluded that the federal discovery rule preempted New York's earlier accrual date under CPLR 214-c and affirmed the denial of the Town of Brookhaven's motion to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred.

Holdings

1. 42 U.S.C. § 9658 applies to state-law personal-injury and property-damage actions caused or contributed to by exposure to hazardous substances released into the environment from a facility, even when the plaintiffs do not assert and could not otherwise assert a CERCLA claim.
2. For plaintiffs who did not commence suit within three years after discovering their injuries under CPLR 214-c(2), section 9658 permits suit within one year after the date they knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous substance caused the injury, even if more than five years had elapsed since discovery of the injury.
3. Brookhaven failed to establish prima facie that any plaintiff's claims were time-barred, so dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(5) was properly denied.
4. The plaintiffs' notices of claim were sufficiently particular under General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) and did not need to identify the specific contaminants allegedly causing the injuries.
5. The amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action for trespass, private nuisance, and strict liability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 9658 preempts New York's toxic-tort accrual rule in CPLR 214-c when the plaintiffs assert state-law claims but the alleged environmental hazard is not otherwise actionable under CERCLA.
2. Whether Brookhaven established that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
3. Whether the plaintiffs' notices of claim satisfied General Municipal Law § 50-e(2).
4. Whether the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action for trespass, private nuisance, and strict liability.

Disposition

affirmed